Last time I wrote about global warming, I said this:

I won’t claim the climate isn’t changing.  That much is obvious.  But I have yet to see anyone show that we’re causing it.  What’s more, I have yet to see anyone show that the climate would stop changing if we (magically) completely eliminated pollution tomorrow – and there’s certainly practically no evidence that we can actually reverse it.

As it turns out, I was wrong; the climate isn’t really changing.

I suspect some of you are staring at your screen with your jaw on the floor.  Allow me to elaborate.  You know the CRU?  The group which was at the forefront of the pro-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming movement?  The group whose e-mails were leaked, displaying their scientific misconduct to the world?

Their director, Phil Jones, has temporarily resigned from his position while the whole thing is investigated.  What’s more, he has publicly admitted that not only is global warming not caused by man, but nothing significant is happening!

But don’t take my word for it.  In his interview with the BBC, he admits that since 1995 there has been no statistically significant planetary warming.  He goes on to quibble over “almost significant” and “over longer periods of time”, in an effort to still support his pro-AGW stance, but then he says this:

Of course, if the [Medieval Warming Period] was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented.

Forbes.com points out that “A Nature study last year showed water temperatures in the Indonesia area were the same in medieval times as they are today.”

In other words, there is, in fact, evidence that the MWP was just as warm as we see things today, which means our current warmth is not unprecedented.

Why does this all this matter?  Well, people who think global warming is man-made always point to greenhouse gases as the cause.  Since 1995, we’ve increased our yearly GHG production by 26%; however, this has had no effect on planetary temperatures.

So if greenhouse gases don’t actually affect the planet’s temperature, and if there have been similar warm periods in the past, then what evidence remains to support AGW?

Jones also states something else:

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.

The director of the Climate Research Unit believes the debate is not over.  How then can Gibbs, the White House press secretary, make the statement he made back in December?

… on the order of several *thousand* scientists have come, uh, to the conclusion that, uh, climate change is happening.  Uh, I don’t think that’s, uh, anything that is quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore.

Even the CRU didn’t really know whether climate change is happening, or whether it’s man-caused.  (If they were sure, there would have been no reason to engage in all the scientific misconduct they did.)

I, for one, am uncomfortable making policies based on such controversial opinions.

There are plenty of reasons to reduce pollution, so it’s complete and utter nonsense to base any pollution-reducing measures on whether global warming is happening (or even on whether it’s our fault).  (Here I’m referring to the Copenhagen conference, whose stated goal is, according to Gibbs, to “stop and reverse climate change”.)

Update: I came across this book review by Freeman Dyson which you may find interesting.  It reviews two “global warming” books and points out some things they’re ignoring.

It seems politicians are abandoning the phrase “global warming” in favor of the more ambiguous “climate change”.  Here’s a two-minute clip of a White House press conference, and a transcript of it:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

Reporter 1:  Climate change.  Why is it a good idea for the President to arrive near the beginning of the climate talk negotiations, as opposed to the end, when the ultimate deal is going to be struck?  And secondarily…

Gibbs: Well… (more…)

Enough said.  Edit: Here’s another.  And another.

Someday I’ll write a longer post about this.

Ars Technica has an article with more information about the ACTA leak I mentioned a few days ago.  What actually leaked was merely a set of notes on a verbal meeting about a draft of the ACTA.  That doesn’t mean the notes are wrong, just that we need to keep them in perspective.

Ars’ conclusion is that the relevant portions of ACTA are merely the same as the DMCA, but on a global scale.  It could conceivably, in the future, morph into BoingBoing’s nightmare scenario, but not in the immediate future.

My interpretation?  This is based on existing law – what possible reason could there be to keep it secret?  I maintain my earlier call – write your Senators and House Representatives.  We need this treaty out in the open for the whole process.

The ACTA is a treaty drafted in secret which is being negotiated between most of the world’s countries and which, among other things, proposes certain agreements between governments regarding the Internet.

I suggest you read this BoingBoing summary of the Internet section of ACTA.

Did you read it?  No?  Go ahead, click that link.  I’ll wait.

Alright, you’ve read it.  Surely you’ll agree, this is A Bad Thing(tm).  There is no possible scenario in which this treaty can have a good effect on the Internet.

Please everyone, write your House Reps and Senators and demand that this be examined by professionals who actually know what they’re doing.  That way it can be destroyed before it’s ever agreed on by governments.