The Week That Was (Sept 27, 2008) brought to you by SEPP


Quote of the Week:

“Do not kid yourselves. There will be a time in this country when to deny the Al Gore version of global warming will be a crime akin to denying the Holocaust in Austria or Germany. People will be going to prison over this sooner than later. I would not be surprised to see the next Congress introduce a bill that will criminalize any disagreement with Gore.”



House Democrats to Let Ban on Drilling Expire: "Congressional Democrats bowed to political pressure yesterday and agreed to let the ban on offshore oil drilling expire, a decision that would allow exploration just three miles off the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines unless the next president reinstates an executive branch order that prohibits drilling. Democrats said they gave in to White House demands rather than risk a showdown over the 'continuing resolution' Congress must pass to fund the federal government through March. A new drilling moratorium would have been included in that wide-ranging measure.” Paul Kane reports for the Washington Post Sept 24, 2008.

In a stunning defeat, congressional Democrats were forced to allow the quarter-century-old offshore drilling ban to expire. But the fight has only begun, with the struggle now shifting to state legislatures.


SEPP Science Editorial #6 (9/27/08)


I have tried to follow the active discussion of the paper by Douglass and Christy (DC) in Energy & Environment Aug 2008.  If I read it correctly, it appears to give some implicit support for the IPCC -- albeit at a lower value of climate sensitivity (CS) [conventionally defined as the temperature rise from a doubling of CO2].  Here are some comments: 


1.  One should exercise great caution before accepting any value for climate sensitivity (CS) obtained by a comparison of current climate models with observations.  The reason quite simply is that the IPCC models do not incorporate all of the important forcings.  They do include the forcing from increasing greenhouse gases based on actual atmospheric measurements.  However, the reported CS depends on many arbitrary parameters fed into the models.  For example, Stainforth et al [2005] quote values for CS between 1.4 and 11.5 degC (as I recall), depending on choices for just six microphysical cloud parameters, said to be selected by ‘expert judgment.’


2.  Aerosol effects are assumed to be unimportant by DC, although this has not been demonstrated.  There has been a reported solar dimming and brightening in the past 30 years, likely related to changes in the aerosol content.  But the published data do not distinguish between absorption and reflection.  There have also been changes in “earthshine” although I’m not aware of any direct interpretation or explanation.


3.  The DC analysis arrives at essentially zero net feedback, with some kind of negative feedback (a la Lindzen?) just canceling the positive WV feedback incorporated in all IPCC models.  Such a coincidence would seem to be unlikely.


4.  More to the point, perhaps, the IPCC neglects any natural forcing from the variability of solar activity.  Based on what we know of the performance of the sun, based also on current measurements of sunspots, of the 'aa' index, etc, one must assume that there have been some changes in the past 30 years and that these have been influencing global temperatures.  This would also influence any determination of climate sensitivity. 


5.  Summing up, I believe that getting a reliable numerical value for climate sensitivity (CS) is rather difficult.  Perhaps we can all agree that CS is greater than zero but small enough – well below the lower IPCC limit (as already found by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, Singer IJC/RoyMetSoc 2007) – so we don’t need to worry about Global Warming.



1.  Biden commits a gaffe on coal


2.  Gore urges civil disobedience to stop coal plants


3.  Corrupted science revealed


4.  Permafrost may not thaw even during Global Warming


5.  'Global warming is a hoax':  New Zealand MP


6.  BBC series counter-attacks climate skeptics

7.  Lord Monckton’s responds to a ‘thermista’ (a.k.a. global warmist).




Sarah Palin is the only major candidate who has expressed doubts about manmade global warming>

PBS has a short video on their website, including a poll that asks: Is Sarah Palin qualified to be VP?  As of Sept 25, 42% percent had voted YES, 58% NO.  Let's turn this around.  You don't have to give your name or email address in order to vote.  Here's the link:

After you vote, please pass this message to your friends.


NASA Science News, Sept 23, 2008:  Solar physicists have announced that the solar wind is losing pressure, hitting a 50-year record low for the Space Age. This development has repercussions across the solar system.

“Climate Change Re-examined” by Prof (emeritus) JOEL M. KAUFFMAN

Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, pp. 723-749, 2007. 0892-3310/07

Mark Kinver, "Britain 'faces power cuts threat in 5 years'," BBC News, September 17, 2008;
Based upon: A Pragmatic Energy Policy for the UK, Fells Associates, August 2008.   

Coal power stations must have carbon capture and storage, UK Environment Agency says.

The Environment Agency (EA), in its response to the Government's consultation on CCS, said building power stations which could have carbon-capture 'bolted on' at a later date should not be an option.  Lord Chris Smith, EA chairman, said: "Building a new generation of coal fired power stations without capturing the carbon emissions would lock the UK into using high carbon technology for decades to come - this is not an environmentally sustainable way of generating power given the challenges we face with climate change."   But Minister Hutton said emissions were already capped under EU agreements and any extra emissions from new power stations would have to be made up elsewhere.  In an uncompromising message he angered green groups by claiming: "No coal plus no nuclear equals no lights. No power. No future."


Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 - July 18, 2008 -Excerpt: the latest information on Arctic ice conditions is just in from the National Snow and Ice Data Center <>:

Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers (3.83 million square miles), it was 1.05 million square kilometers (0.41 million square miles) above the value for July 16, 2007...


Sea surface temperatures along the Alaska, Chukchi, and Beaufort sea coasts are 2 to 8 degrees Celsius colder this year than at the same time last year. [...] Significant ice will begin developing along the Alaska coast north of 70n within the next 10 to 14 days.


New book: “Climate Change Policy: Challenging the Activists”

By Colin Robinson:  Market-based adaptation should be favoured over central planning



Göteborg (Sweden) prohibits sparkling (CO2) water, Expressen  Sept 20, 2008


High Divorce Rate Contributing Towards Global Warming?  A study to understand this aspect has come up with some startling facts. As the divorce rate spirals out of control, it is creating more and more families with lesser number of individuals composing the given families. This is the obvious corollary of the family break up following divorce.


CNN Claims: Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks
Excerpt: Scientists have noticed increasing reports of starving Arctic polar bears attacking and feeding on one another in recent years. In one documented 2004 incident in northern Alaska, a male bear broke into a female's den and killed her.

So did this male polar bear eat the female polar bear or just kill it; which would seem to be appropriate if you were trying to reduce the competition for seals.  But that was in 2004.  So what is the murder rate up to these days (among polar bears)?



WSJ,  Sept 25, 2008


The classic definition of a gaffe is when a politician accidentally tells the truth, and specialists like Joe Biden can work wonders with the form. On Tuesday Barack Obama's running mate blew an easy question about coal, revealing volumes about liberal energy politics.


Working the rope line in Maumee, Ohio, the Senator was asked by an environmentalist why he and Mr. Obama support "clean coal." "We're not supporting clean coal," Mr. Biden responded. Then, riffing on China's breakneck construction of new coal plants, he continued, "No coal plants here in America. Build them, if they're going to build them, over there."


Coal happens to be the indispensable workhorse of the U.S. power system, providing about 50% of the country's electricity. Many Democrats nonetheless despise coal -- because of pollution before the era of scrubbers, but especially now because of carbon emissions. Al Gore favors an outright moratorium on coal-fired power in the name of climate change. Meanwhile, any scheme to tax and regulate carbon -- like the cap-and-trade program backed by Mr. Obama and John McCain -- would hit coal first and hardest, effectively banishing it from the U.S. energy mix.


Mr. Biden, then, only stated an obvious if politically unutterable truth. The real costs of green ambitions won't be paid by well-heeled coastal liberals, but will fall disproportionately on the Southern and Midwestern states that depend on coal for jobs and power. The blue-collar voters of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and so forth will get hurt most -- notwithstanding Mr. Biden's campaign reinvention as the scrapper from Scranton.


As for "clean coal," the Obama campaign actually supports it. But this too is a political bait-and-switch, perhaps explaining Mr. Biden's confusion. In theory, clean coal would require capturing greenhouse gas emissions, compressing them into liquid and then pumping it underneath the earth. -Even if the technology were ready for commercial deployment tomorrow, to sequester just 25% of yearly U.S. CO2 emissions would mean moving volumes more than twice as large as the world's current oil pipeline system can handle. That will require an enormous amount of money, and generations to build.


That an eminence like Mr. Biden is clueless about coal suggests how little official Washington has thought through the consequences of its anticarbon agenda. His blunder is also notable because it exposed the realities that politicians prefer not to voice amid an election campaign. Coal-state voters should be watching what their politicians really have planned for them come January.



By Michelle Nichols, Sept 24, 2008


NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nobel Peace Prize winner and environmental crusader Al Gore urged young people on Wednesday to engage in civil disobedience to stop the construction of coal plants without the ability to store carbon.

The former U.S. vice president, whose climate change documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award, told a philanthropic meeting in New York City that "the world has lost ground to the climate crisis."

"If you're a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration," Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.

"I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact," he said. "I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that."

The government says about 28 coal plants are under construction in the United States. Another 20 projects have permits or are near the start of construction.

Scientists* say carbon gases from burning fossil fuel for power and transport are a key factor in global warming.
*only some “data-challenged” ones


Carbon capture and storage could give coal power an extended lease on life by keeping power plants' greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere and easing climate change.

But no commercial-scale project exists anywhere to demonstrate the technology, partly because it is expected to increase up-front capital costs by an additional 50 percent.

So-called geo-sequestration of carbon sees carbon dioxide liquefied and pumped into underground rock layers for long term storage.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner; Editing by Christine Kearney and Xavier Briand)



Jerome J. Schmitt,  Sept 24, 2008


Outsiders familiar with the proper workings of science have long known that modern Climate Science is dysfunctional. Now a prominent insider, MIT Meteorology Professor Richard S. Lindzen, confirms how Al Gore and his minions used Stalinist tactics to subvert, suborn and corrupt a whole branch of science, citing chapter and verse in his report entitled  "Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?"  His answer:  A resounding "NO!"

Detailing the corruption, he names a series of names.  Until reading this I did not know that

"For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore." Page 5

Although a bit lengthy, this very important report is highly readable and revealing.  While some of the paragraphs are a bit technical, I encourage AT readers to wade through them because their purpose is to provide specific examples of how a radical cabal is forcing scientists to ignore or amend measurements that undermine the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Scientists are literally forced to include sentences in their papers that indicate their support of AGW, even if these sentences are non-sequiturs, or even if they conflict with the overall thrust of the paper. In this way, Al Gore's uneducated political commissars are able to deliver the "consensus" he so craves.

How is this possible you might ask?  Prof. Lindzen gives considerable background history.

However, having been an undergraduate and graduate student in the hard sciences, and later a research collaborator with dozens of industrial scientists and university professors, perhaps I can shed some further light. Today's scientists get to the top of their field by extreme dedication to their specialty involving inordinate focus and concentration that cannot tolerate distractions. The best scientists are constantly "at home" at their lab bench, with their instruments, analyzing data, teaching a few promising students and preparing publications.  Most scientists interact intensively only with other specialists in allied fields ("geeks"). 

Many scientists are naturalized citizens from Asia and Eastern Europe, unfamiliar and intimidated by American politics and government, to which they are dependent upon for visas and grant support.  Although all stereotypes are unfair to individuals, there is some truth to the one of the shy, retiring, absent-minded professor.  His or her absent-mindedness is most likely due to intense cogitation on a difficult scientific problem.  Their dealings with one another are only possible by maintaining extreme standards of honesty, integrity and open-mindedness to scholarly debate in search of the truth. The very qualities that make them good scientists and scholars thus leave them ill-equipped to deal with the raucous, underhanded, disrespectful, politically-motivated radicals unleashed upon them by Al Gore and his fifth column for a "hostile takeover" of their scientific institutions.

I naively thought that the National Academy of Sciences could impose some quality-control on an errant discipline.   Prof. Lindzen notes that event this august body has been penetrated by eco-activists by exploiting loopholes in its nominating procedures. 

Fortunately, in science "truth will out".  The long term faith of the American public in science, a trust built up since WWI is at stake. Next it will be important to see whether a prominent scientific journal publishes this revelation.

As an aside, for those who have wondered how leftist cabals were able in the 60's and 70's to take over our universities' humanity departments, the National Endowment of the Arts and the National Endowment of the Humanities, Prof  Lindzen's report lays bare the template for radicalization.


By Henry Fountain,  NYT, Sept 23, 2008

One of the potential consequences of a warmer world, according to scientists who study such things, is the deep thawing of the permafrost. Thawing could release huge quantities of carbon into the atmosphere, as vegetation, bones and other organic material, long locked up in the deep freezer that is the permafrost, decompose. But a study published in Science suggests that the impact of warming on the permafrost may not be as bad as forecast. The evidence comes in the form of a wedge of ancient ice found at an old mining site in the Yukon in Canada. Ice wedges form in permafrost when the ground cracks because of cold, and spring meltwater seeps in and freezes. Over hundreds of years, the wedge builds up, like an in-ground icicle. Duane G. Foresee of the University of Alberta, the lead author of the study, said ice wedges could provide clues to the long-term stability of the permafrost. The problem is figuring out how old they are. In this case, the top of the wedge was a couple of yards deep in the permafrost, and the researchers found volcanic ash on its top surface. By dating the ash (which presumably came from eruptions in what is now southeastern Alaska), Dr. Froese and his colleagues were able to say how long the ice has been there: about 740,000 years. Because the ash had to have been deposited after the wedge formed, that's "very clear proof," Dr. Froese said, that the ice is at least that old. That means the ice survived through several warming periods, including the last major one, 120,000 years ago. "The general view is that everything would have melted out back then," Dr. Froese said. The new finding suggests that wasn't the case, and that models of future melting need to be rethought.



-Rodney Hide, MP, in NZ Parliament, 2 September 2008,


"The entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, Al Gore is a phony and a fraud on this issue, and the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle."   On Climate Change (Emissions Trading & Renewable Preference) Bill


I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science.  It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say -- that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phony and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle.


Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear­-that is the point of it -- and it will drive up the costs of basic goods and services for New Zealanders probably by at least $500 or $600 a year.  It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business, and put farmers off their farms.  And it will do all this for no impact on world weather, for no environmental gain, and for no conceivable advantage to New Zealand or to the world.


Yes, it is bad that we are rushing this legislation through in the dying days of a teetering regime, propped up by a *Minister of Foreign Affairs who is under investigation for serious and complex fraud.


That is bad, but it is the impact that this legislation and this policy will have on New Zealanders that is so truly shocking. All we have in this is a computer model. That is notoriously difficult, because the answers are written in the assumptions. Let me give members just one example.


The problem for the first two Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reports was what was called the medieval warming period, where a thousand years ago the Earth was warmer than it is now.


Then, magically, an obscure physicist in the US came up with a new bit of analysis - the hockey stick - that showed world temperature to be flat and then rising dramatically as the world became industrialised.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed this, put it on the front of its document, and repeated it five times.


Researchers all around the world were puzzled by this, because it did not fit any of their data. Eventually they got hold of that computer model and they discovered this: any numbers fed into that model would produce the hockey stick.


We could take the Wellington telephone directory, feed it into the model that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in 2001, and we would get the hockey stick that saw the world running scared, that saw policy-makers running scared, and saw Al Gore make his movie based on it.


The science was rubbish, because a computer model is not science. Science is about theories, hypothesis, and the testing of these against the facts. That is not what has happened in the basic science here. That is bad enough, but what is worse is the policy rationale underpinning this legislation. The Minister would come before the select committee and talk about a "cap and trade" but, when asked, would say: "Yes, there is no cap."  We are creating a market in hot air, without any quantified amount.


By Christopher Booker,
Sunday Telegraph,  21/09/2008


As informed questioning of the global warming orthodoxy rises on all sides, the BBC's three-part series Climate Wars, ending tonight, bears all the marks of a carefully planned counter-attack.

BBC science producers were apoplectic at the attention given last year to Martin Durkin's Channel 4 documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, featuring a galaxy of the world's more sceptical climate scientists. This is their riposte.

Last week, against a range of far-flung locations from Greenland to California, the presenter, Dr Iain Stewart, tackled three of the main arguments of Durkin's film.

In each case the technique was the same. After caricaturing the sceptics' point, with sound bite clips that did not allow them to develop their scientific argument, he then asserted that they had somehow been discredited.

For example, doubts had been raised over the reliability of satellite temperature records, which do not show the same degree of warming as surface readings. Dr Roy Spencer, who designed NASA's satellite system for measuring temperatures, was allowed to admit that a flaw had been found in the system.

But his interview ended before he could explain that, when the flaw was discovered in 1998, it was immediately corrected (although it made little difference to the results).

Likewise, there is a growing case for a correlation between global temperatures and solar activity. Dr Stewart accused Durkin's programme of cutting off a graph which illustrated this at a point when the data failed to support the thesis. Then he did exactly the same himself, not extending his own graph to 2008 in a way that would reinforce the thesis.

Most hilarious of all, however, was a long sequence in which Stewart defended the notorious "hockey stick" graph, which purports to show that temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level on record.

The BBC had a huge blow-up of this "iconic" graph carted triumphantly round London, from Big Ben to Buckingham Palace, as if it were proof that the warming alarmists are right.

There was no hint that the "hockey stick" is among the most completely discredited artefacts in the history of science, not least thanks to the devastating critique by Steve McIntyre, which showed that the graph's creators had an algorithm in their programme which could produce a hockey-stick shape whatever data were fed into it.

There was scarcely a frame of this clever exercise which did not distort or obscure some vital fact. Yet the "impartial" BBC is sending out this farrago of convenient untruths to schools, ensuring that the "march of the lie" continues.




Dear Sir Humphrey - The "Abundance of scientific statements" that you mention is no sound or logical basis for deciding or believing anything. The question is whether the scientific statements have any rational justification, and whether those making them are in effect making statements that are political rather than scientific -- rent-seeking rather than objective. After all, this is the age of reason (or it was). Therefore, one should not accord to "scientists" the status of infallible high priests merely because they mumble a hieratic language with which one is unfamiliar. There is clear, compelling evidence that many of the major conclusions of the IPCC, your new religion's constantly-changing Holy Book, are based on evidence that has been fabricated. The "hockey stick" graph that purported to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period is just one example. So let me try to lure you away from feeble-minded, religious belief in the Church of "Global Warming" and back towards the use of the faculty of reason.
Let us begin with the "devastation of New Orleans" that you mention. Even the High Priests of your Church are entirely clear that individual extreme-weather events such as Hurricane Katrina cannot -- repeat cannot -- be attributed to "global warming". Even the Holy Book makes this entirely plain. There was one priest -- Emmanuel (a good, religious name) of MIT -- who had suggested there might be a link between "global warming" and hurricanes; but he has recently recanted, at least to some extent. Very nearly all others in the hierarchy of your Church are clear that ascribing individual extreme-weather events to "global warming" is impossible. Why? Well, let's take the question of land-falling Atlantic hurricanes such as Katrina. The implication of your attribution of Hurricane Katrina to "global warming" is twofold: that "global warming" is happening, and that in consequence either the frequency or the intensity of tropical weather systems such as hurricanes is increasing. Neither of these propositions is true. Yes, there has been "global warming" for 300 years, since the end of the 60-year period of unusually low solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum (after the celebrated Astronomer Royal who studied it). But there has been no net warming since 1998, and Keenlyside et al, in the theological journal Nature a few months ago, say they do not expect a new record year for global temperatures until 2015 at the earliest. If these theologians are correct, there will have been a 20-year period of no net "global warming" even though the presence of the devil Siotu in the ether grows inexorably stronger. And, secondly, the number of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall has actually fallen throughout the 20th century, even as temperatures have risen. Indeed, some theologians have argued that warmer weather actually reduces the temperature differential between sea and sky that generates hurricanes, reducing their frequency, and that the extra heat in the coupled ocean-atmosphere system increases wind-shear in tropical storms, tending to reduce their intensity. Certainly the frequency of intense tropical cyclones has fallen throughout the 30-year satellite record, even though temperatures have increased compared with 30 years ago. Also, the damage done by Hurricane Katrina was chiefly caused by the failure of the Democrat-led city administration to heed repeated warnings from the Corps of Engineers that the levees needed to be strengthened.
Next, you mention the recent flooding damage at Galveston, and you imply that this is something new and terrible. Perhaps you would like to do some research of your own to verify whether the High Priests of your Church, some of whom have blamed the Galveston incident on the wrath of the devil Siotu, are likely to be telling the truth. And how, you may ask, may a non-theologian such as yourself argue theology with your High Priests? Well, the Galveston incident will give you just one indication of the many ways in which a lay member of the Church of "Global Warming" may verify for himself whether or not the Great Druids of his religion are speaking the truth from their pulpits in the media. Cast your eye back just over a century, to 1906, and look up what happened to Galveston then. Which was worse - Galveston 2008 or Galveston 1906? Next, check the global mean surface temperature in 1906: many theology faculties compile surface temperature data and make it publicly available to the faithful and to infidels alike. Was the global mean surface temperature significantly lower or significantly higher in 2008 than in 1906? What implications do your two answers have for your proposition that Galveston 2008 can be attributed to "global warming"?
Next, you mention fires in California. Once again, you can either sit slumped in your pew, gazing in adoration at the Archdruids as their pious faces flicker across your television screen, or you can do a little research for yourself. It may, for instance, occur to you to ask whether droughts were worse in the United States in the second half of the 20th century than they were in the first half. Once again, you may want to check with your local theological faculty to obtain the answer to this question. Or you may like to pick up a copy of The Grapes of Wrath, by John Steinbeck. And you may want to verify whether temperatures in the second half of the 20th century were warmer than in the first half. Once again, what are the implications of your two answers for your proposition that "global warming" is causing forest fires? You could also talk to the Fire Department in California and obtain its data on the causes of forest fires. You might be mightily surprised by the answers you get.

Next, you talk of beetles in your forests destroying natural resources. Here, you could ask the Druids just a couple of simple questions. What evidence do they have, if any, that whichever species of beetle you have in mind has not wrought havoc in the forests before? And, even if your clergy think that they have evidence that the beetle-damage is new, what evidence do they have, if any, that the beetle-damage is greater because of "global warming" than it would otherwise have been? Of course, you could ask them the wider question what evidence there is that anthropogenic "global warming", as opposed to solar warming, is the reason for the temperature increases that have occurred over the past 300 years. The more honest parish priests will admit that for 250 of the past 300 years none of the inferred warming can be attributed to human industry. They will also be compelled to concede, if you press them, that the warming of the most recent 50 years has not occurred at a rate any greater than that which was observed before, so that it is in fact very difficult to discern any anthropogenic signal at all in the temperature record.
Next, you talk of people migrating from one place to another because in some places water has become scarce. Once again, it is easy for a layman, whether a true believer such as yourself or not, to verify whether such migrations are as a result of "global warming". For instance, you could ask whether there have been changing patterns of drought and flood before in human history. Once you have collected some historical data - most theological faculties have quite a lot of this available, though you may have to dig a little to get it - you could compare previous migrations with those of which you now speak. And you could also ask your local parish priest whether a theological phenomenon known as the Clausius-Clapeyron relation mandates that, as the atmosphere warms, the carrying-capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere for water vapor decreases, remains static, or increases near-exponentially. Once you have found the answers to these not particularly difficult questions, you may like to spend some of your devotional time meditating on the question whether, or to what extent, the changes in patterns of flood and drought that have occurred in the past give you any confidence that such changes occurring today are either worse than those in the past or attributable to "global warming", whether caused by the increasing presence of the devil Siotu in the atmosphere or by the natural evolution of the climate. During your meditation, you may like to refer to the passage from the 2001 edition of the Holy Book of the IPCC that describes the climate as "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object" whose long-term future evolution cannot reliably be predicted.
If you are willing to reflect a little on the questions I have raised - and, with the exception of the Clausius-Clapeyron relation, I have done my best to avoid anything that might be too technical for a layman to find out for himself - you will perhaps come to realize that there is very little basis in scientific fact for the alarmist, hellfire preaching in which your clergy love to indulge. And you may even find your faith in your new religion beginning to weaken a little in the face of the truths that you will have unearthed by the not particularly difficult process of simply checking those statements of your clergy that you can easily and independently verify. There are, of course, many environmental problems posed by the astonishing recent success of humankind. If you were concerned, for instance, about deforestation, or the loss of species whose habitats have been displaced by humans, then your concerns would have a good grounding in fact. But, given the abject failure of global temperatures to rise as the Druids had forecast, it must surely be clear to you that the influence of the devil Siotu on global temperatures - your theologians call this "climate sensitivity" - must be a great deal smaller than your Holy Book asks you to believe.
Finally, you may wonder why I have so scathingly described your pious belief in your new religion as founded upon blind faith rather than upon the light of reason. I have drafted this email in this way so that you can perhaps come to see for yourself just how baffling it is to the likes of me, who were educated in the light of TH Huxley's dictum that the first duty of the scientist is skepticism, to see how easily your hierarchy is able to prey upon your naive credulity. I do not target this comment at you alone: there are far too many others who, like you, are in positions of some authority and whose duty to think these things through logically is great, and yet who simply fail to ask even the most elementary and blindingly obvious questions before sappily, happily, clappily believing in, and parroting by rote, whatever the current Establishment proposes. I do not know whether you merely believe all that you are told by the Druids because otherwise you will find yourself in conflict with other true believers among your colleagues or, worse, among your superiors. If you are under pressures of this kind, I do sympathize. But if you are free to think for yourself without penalty, may I beg you - in the name of humanity - to give the use of reason a try?
Why "in the name of humanity"? Because, although the noisy preachers from the media pulpits have found it expedient not to say so, there have been food riots all round the world as the biofuel scam whipped up by the High Priests of your religion takes vast tracts of agricultural land out of food production. Millions are now starving because the price of food has doubled in little more than a year. A leaked report by the World Bank says that fully three-quarters of that doubling has occurred as a direct result of the biofuel scam. So your religion is causing mass starvation in faraway countries, and is even causing hardship to the poorest in your own country. Can you, in conscience, look away from the sufferings that your beliefs are inflicting upon the poorest and most helpless people in the world? -- Monckton of Brenchley