“If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW,” says the Telegraph’s James Delingpole.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey claims the emails discuss “repetitive, false data of higher temperatures.”
The National Review’s Chris Horner salivates, “The blue-dress moment may have arrived.”
“The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century,” blares Michelle Malkin.
The Australia Herald-Sun’s Andrew Bolt claims the emails are “proof of a conspiracy which is one of the largest, most extraordinary and most disgraceful in moderrn [sic] science.”
So, do these emails and documents represent proof of a “conspiracy” and “scandal”? At this point it seems highly unlikely, and the more that people look at the illegally-obtained emails and documents, the less likely it will become. Here’s why. Continue reading →
Due to the large size of this week’s Carboholic, I’ve busted it up into sections for readability.
When you’re talking about Antarctica and global heating, there are some serious problems. The few satellites that are in polar orbits to monitor the poles can’t directly detect how thick the ice shelf is, or what the salinity and temperature of the water beneath the ice shelf is. Floating sensor buoys can’t get beneath the ice shelves and are rather limited in their operational depth. And sending people out to drill deep holes and manually measure temperature and salinity is far too expensive and dangerous. And given that what the water under floating ice shelves is doing may be key to understanding how Antarctica will respond to global heating, the problems represent serious limitations. Which is why the key to understanding what’s happening immediately around and beneath the Antarctic ice shelves may well be elephant seals. Continue reading →