Cooling the global warming hype

If you believe the "inconvenient truth" and enviro-commie hype about the global warming myth and its new moniker "climate change", then read this.

Here are some snippets...

In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past
half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback
effects that determine the Earth's temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen.

Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test; it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to GHGs will nullify the initial temperature rise.

The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate. For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect. It has been suggested that the computer climate models treat feedbacks related to water vapor incorrectly.

The global warming hypothesis is not based upon the radiative properties of the GHGs themselves. It is based entirely upon a small initial increase in temperature caused by GHGs and a large theoretical amplification of that temperature change. Any comparable temperature increase from another cause would produce the same outcome from the calculations.

At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth's atmosphere.

Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. It does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated.

Now this from Prime Minister Harper...

At a news conference in the Senate foyer a week ago, Harper said in defence
of his environmental plan: "As we implement our clean-air agenda, the focus is a little different than the other parties. They focus only on so-called greenhouse gases and ignored smog entirely."

Back in the 2004 election campaign, Harper said of climate change: "The
science is still evolving."

And in September 2002, Harper said this when asked about the "greenhouse
effect:" "It's a scientific hypothesis, a controversial one and one that I think there is some preliminary evidence for. ... This may be a lot of fun for a few scientific and environmental elites in Ottawa, but ordinary Canadians from coast to coast will not put up with what this (Kyoto accord) will do to their economy and lifestyle, when the benefits are negligible."

What is it going to take to convince people that global warming is a myth and that our Prime Minister and government are on the mark with the Clean Air Act?

I'm sick of the Al Gore's, U.N. bureaucrats, so-called scientists, and their fellow global-socialists who continue to scare people with doomsday lies into believing we need to implement punishing tax measures like a carbon tax to "save the world". Why no call for a smog tax?

And notice how it's just "carbon", so they can include and fool people into believing that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are basically one and the same. That extra oxygen molecule allows plants to absorb the product of animals breathing.

So who will have the guts to stand up to enviro-commies and the global warming myth?

Methinks, once again, it's Stephen Harper.

Mark Messier

Prime Minister Stephen Harper was recently interviewed (h/t William) and had this to say about former Edmonton Oiler, Mark Messier (whose jersey will be retired in Edmonton in February):

Asked by Global TV which hockey player best stands out as a leader on the
ice over the years, Harper didn't hesitate: "It would be hard, historically, to
say there was ever a greater leader on a hockey team than Mark Messier."

The one-time Edmonton Oilers star was "talented, tough" and "a great
player" (who) "inspired others."

Being a huge fan of the new and old Oilers, growing up, I admired Messier, if not downright idolized the guy. (Side note: When I was a single digit kid, his uncle used to stop by the house.)

Because of this declaration, it's obvious our Prime Minister certainly has a keen knowledge for hockey. How many prime ministers can say that?

Now I know what you're thinking ... "Geez, Hatrock, anything you find in the news making Stephen Harper look good, you'll talk about." True, because there's a lot of biased negative press about the guy that I like to counteract, but this connection between an athletic leader and political leader needs to be made, because when's the last time, heck, first time, that was ever done?

Not only that, but it's obvious our Prime Minister understands what leadership is all about.

When Wayne Gretzky was traded to the Los Angeles Kings, many thought this was the end of the Oiler's dynasty. WRONG! That year they went on to win the Cup without "The Great One", but with "Moose" leading the way. Granted there were a lot of great players still on the team, and you can have all the great players you want, but without a defining leader keeping everyone focused, all you have are a bunch of individuals. And let me tell you, I don't think Glen Sather was ever really a great coach, but he knew when to let these players do their own thing, and that's why Mark Messier stepped up to the plate early on.

Stephen Harper saw an opportunity to step up to the plate when he ran for the leadership of the Canadian Alliance (which I strongly supported him on). He knew there should be only one conservative party in this country, and once Joe Clark was gone, the will was there to get it done. His leadership style is tough, non-dithering, and full of action. Could anyone keep up to him after that? Look how much he and the party in gov't have accomplished under a year, despite being in a minority situation! I'd say that Mr. Harper is the best conservative prime minister this country has ever had and I know there are more great things to come. So adjusting the snippet above:

Asked by a colleague which prime minister best stands out as a leader on the Hill over the years, Hatrock didn't hesitate: "It would be hard, historically, to say there was ever a greater leader in government than Stephen Harper." The one-time Conservative Party star is "talented, tough" and "a great leader" (who) "inspired others."

But I'm wondering though, the hockey stick I have signed by both Gretzky and Messier, does an endorsement from the Prime Minister of Canada increase its sell value?

One "E" leads to another

This news is the best news I've heard ever. Our gutsy Prime Minister has found a way to have us voters elect Senators without opening the constitution (which I know he really wants to do, but not yet). One E down, two to go.

"Imagine that, after a century and a half, democracy will finally come to
the Senate of Canada."

"I have a warning for the Liberals. A democratically elected and genuinely accountable Senate may not serve the Liberal party, but it will serve the Canadian people, and their interests come first to the Conservative party," Harper said.

No kidding. And I especially love this type of support from our new guy...

Alberta Premier designate Ed Stelmach isn't one of those Albertans that agrees
with Dion.

"I believe what Prime Minister Harper is doing is opening up consultation in terms of how to bring about Senate reform and we're going to work with him," Stelmach said in Edmonton. "We have been supportive of Senate reform for many, many years and will continue to do so. I'm awaiting the details of his proposals."

What I especially like is Dion and Sask premier Lorne Calvert are even opening up to the second E, regarding having equal representation, which is most favourite issue and one that will truly solve a lot of this country's unity problems. They obviously now recognize this is the path to go, toward a Triple-E Senate, but they're still too chicken.

Earlier this year, when Mr. Harper went before the Senate and gave them a warning, I said that the Liberals wouldn't want to debate it. Well, why is that? Is it because they've held the majority in the Senate for over a decade? They can't lose their grip and give it to the people, can they?

What's ironic is that Canadians forget that our fair country was created primarily because the fathers of confederation agreed to have appointed senators, although many wanted an elected one. They thought they'd get around to it later on, but creating the country was the priority.

I bet Harper has been planning this for years. Seriously. He's executed this plan perfectly. He put forth an easy-to-digest platform and has actually delivered on those campaign promises, unlike the Liberals. They've never delivered.

The Accountability Act finally passed this week, spent 9 months in the Liberal dominated Senate. Many amendments were made by Liberals to water it down, to ensure they still have a grip on power. The main reason they lost last election was due to Canadians being fed up with Liberal corruption. How can the Liberals NOT pass it? They're going to look like fools.... again. All part of the plan.

Oh, and you're going to hear a lot of so-called constitutional liberal "academics" play down Harper's plan for Senate reform. Don't listen to them. You're a Canadian voter and a taxpayer and you should decide who represents you in government and how they spend your money.

In next budget, likely February, look for the Conservatives to propose middle-class tax cuts , which the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc will defeat to spring an election. Bring it on!

The Conservatives will win because only they understand and appeal to the middle class voter and their daily lives. The Liberals and NDP are so out of touch with average Canadian families.

The need for accountability and senate reform will become the keystone in the election because all Harper has to say is that the Liberals have been blocking legislation that would directly benefit average families.

And so it appears this upcoming election will be another chapter, perhaps the final one, in the Liberal adscam story.

In less than a year, and in a minority, the Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper have been dismantling the Liberal grip on this country.

The next election will finally chop off their gritty little hands.

Where in the world is Carmen San Diego?

Well, where? I'm here in San Diego again and I can't seem to find her. I really love this city. The people are uber-friendly. In fact, one bartender already recognized me from my last visit 4 months ago.

Anyway, lots has happened in politics this past week, so from the hotel...


Same-Sex Marriage - Keeping in mind the vote last week was to re-open the debate, not actually a bill about SSM. Regardless, it was defeated and no debate. Everyone knew Harper wasn't intending on winning it, but the main reason wasn't so much that he promised in the last election, but that the original vote on SSM wasn't a free vote. The Liberal cabinet was whipped into voting for it whereas the Conservatives let their MPs vote freely. But THAT wasn't the main reason either. It had to do with that the Supreme Court who couldn't decide so it sent it to parliament to decide first. Making laws in this country isn't really supposed to work that way.

So the CPC simply had a free vote. At first, new Libleader Dion,

Anyway, my belief about SSM marriage? It goes both ways. Ha!


Lefties Untie! -- Blogger Nicole Martel talks about how although there are three parties on the left, especially as regards to the environment issue, that this still benefits the Liberals somehow. Sadly, she's right ... um, ... I mean, correct. The Liberals are masters of placing the ideological wedge. Dion is already scaring the soft-dippers over to the Liberals. NDP support is slipping to the red machine and the green machine. NDP core support just seems to be weakening and this is not good for Conservatives. The CPC war room needs to not only scare red tories from going Dion, but scare soft-dippers away from Dion. But how?

Stephane Dion's French citizenship is how. This is personal. Not good, but Harper isn't making any direct comments on it. Seriously though, move on guys.

Being a libertarian at heart, I think dual citizenships are great. There's probably more details to work out, but as an I.T. guy who'll be travelling between Canada and the U.S. quite a bit in the next few years due to the clients we're getting down south, some contracts will require a U.S. citizenship of some sort. It's a good thing. I don't care if a leader has dual citizenship, but don't say you'll drop your French card only if it benefits your electability, yet in the same breath say you'll honour it because of your mother.

Hey Stephane, we already KNOW you're French Canadian!

The thing about this is that Duceppe could use Dion's duality as a valid argument that shows Canada is open to allow, oh I dunno, let's say Quebec/Canada dual citizenships. Methinks there are a many soft-nationalists who'd go for that idea.


Calgary - I get the feeling that the Calgary Compact is upset that a Northern rural guy will be premier in a couple of days or more so feeling left out that their boss Jimbo didn't win. Lighten up everyone--Ed's a fair guy who'll reward loyalty (tee hee!).

And now back to San Diego... Carmen that is. Where are you????!!!!

Oh look, another poll!

Remember the poll from last week showing Harper would be 7 to 10 points up on whomever was chosen Liberal leader? If you didn't, then as I predicted, it wasn't really slapped on the front page anywhere.

Amazingly, this poll now shows Dion ahead by 6 points on Harper and because of that it gets slapped on the front page on none other than the Globe and Mail.

Paul Wells and Adam Daifallah are saying that Dion won't do as badly in Quebec as some think. Don't forget, Harper called Dion last week regarding the "nation motion" to get his thoughts. Dion went along with the motion, which actually might have scored him points in Quebec.

Dion is off and running with the usual attacks against the Conservatives being right-wing (yawn)and today's question period in the House of Commons had an excellent exchange between the two leaders. So I think there's going to be some quality debate coming up and less personal attack.

But the difference in these polls indicates to me that the Liberal love-in convention had an impact on those who were polled. These sentiments obviously won't last. I think Harper is smart enough not to underestimate Dion.

What gets me is that Dion appears to be getting credit as the author of the Clarity Act, when it was Harper's idea in the first place, like about 10 years ago.

(Hey, remember the election that began a whole year ago? Harper's been Prime Minister for 301 days now. Seems much longer doesn't it? That's because he's actually accomplishing things.)

"Nice guys finish first."

December 2, 2006 will go down in secondary history. This blog didn't pay much attention to the Liberal leadership race, because, well, in the long run it isn't going to matter who wins, Harper will win anyway. But tho'd a thought Stephane Dion and Ed Stelmach would have won? No one. I predicted Iggy and Morton, but it appears a couple things were on delegates/members minds Saturday. It also brings to my mind why Stephen Harper is prime minister.

1) Flare is out. Substance is in.
2) Hype is out. Steadiness is in.
3) Front runners are out. Quiet, second choice, third place guys are in.
4) Bad guys are out. Good guys are in.
5) Negative is out. Positive is in.

I met Ed Stelmach earlier this year. Super nice man. I haven't met Stephane Dion though and probably won't ever, but I always respected his style. I think the Liberals knew they wouldn't win the next election, but needed to unite the party, whereas in Alberta, the PCs were deeply divided between Dinning and Morton, didn't like the negative campaigning, and wanted to unite people.

I picked Morton as my #1 as I wanted drastic changes, knew we probably wouldn't get that, but would definitely be happy with Ed, so he was my #2 pick. I'm happy and will stay in the party for now.

At heart, I'm a pragmatist, but like to quietly push people toward my view. So think of a scale. Candidate Alpha who has lots of support is at -10 on my ideological scale which I completely disagree with but want things to go at +2 or 3. Candidate Beta is at +15, who I don't totally agree with, but know we need to move people away from Candidate Alpha. It's called polarization, which usualy ends up seeing someone shoot up the middle. It happened to Dalton McGuinty in Ontario, Stephane Dion, and Ed Stelmach.

Dinning tried to be the front-runner and everyone's second choice at the same time. It backfired as he got scared about Morton and went negative on him. Morton tried to go soft, went on the defensive, but it was too late. Meanwhile, Steady Eddie won the hearts of the entire northern part of the province.

What is clear is that the north vs. south, urban vs. rural divisions in Alberta are way more profound than anyone realized. Northern rural Alberta is sick and tired of Calgary running the province. Northern Alberta to Calgary is like Alberta to Toronto.

Back to the federal scene...

Here's what's going to happen in 2007. Harper will continue to paint himself as a soft-federalist in Quebec which will squeeze him more Quebec seats just over a majority. Dion is a hard-federalist, and I understand he's not all roses and sunshine with Quebeckers. Dion may squeeze NDP and Green Party votes away due to his stance on the enrivonment, but if left leaning voters don't see the Liberals winning anyway, they'll stick with their soft support.

That all said, Dion's poor English won't transcribe well in western Canada at all, or with middle class families. Harper has that vote locked up. One of Dion's planks is to focus on the economy, which paints him on the right side, and a good move. If Dion moves to the left too much, goes too negative on Harper, voters will get turned off. Likewise, the Conservatives shouldn't go too negative on Dion. He's likeable and it will backfire. I suggest the Conservatives and Harper stay positive, sell THEIR ideas, record, and new policies. Harper will have a much easier time communicating that instead of focusing on Dion.

Because it seems in Canada now, as Alberta's new premier said, "Oh and folks, nice guys finish first."

Iggy who?

While I'm not much on polls in general, especially from Liberally biased Decima, which all the MSM newspapers love to slap on the front page whenever it shows the Liberals leading or tied with the Conservatives. Remember that poll from several weeks ago which showed the tie?

Well, here's one from Ipsos that contradicts it (or it shows that the Liberals are actually better without a leader). But let's see how much this is played up by the MSM and newspapers. I bet it barely makes a dent, instead you'll see lots of Liberal Leadership Love-In-Stuff.

Harper: 35-38%
Iggy/Rae/Dion/Kennedy: 25-28%

What was surprising was with Dion, former environment kyoto-loving minister as leader, the Green Party numbers go up. I'm glad Jack's numbers are in the high-teens.

With Iggy, Harper should play up the hockey dad Tim Horton image again and again and again.

---

Quick question: Would premier Charest have played up the Quebec nation thing as much when he was PC leader in 1997? Notice how now that he's talking tough, he's tied with the Boisclair PQ at 37% when not long ago, Charest looked like he was tanking. That said, he's not doing as well with la francaphonie, but better with soft-nationalists.

Soft-nationalists in Quebec remind me of a lot of soft-quasi-closet-separatists in Alberta. They have a lot in common--like dogs really. Le "Quebecois" get a nice medium sized bone to chew on for a while. What will Albertans get? Well, we got a Prime Minister from our province and his push for Senate reform, moderate lower taxes, but we're not really chewing on anything like Quebec has. Thing is, when Quebeckers are done with that bone, they'll want another one. I think a Premier Morton would say, "Well, we want one too" when Dinning and Stelmach wouldn't ask for much at all. The other premiers don't get bones, just Scooby transfer Snaks.

Imagine Nation in Motion

As with many people, I've had a couple days to ponder the Quebecois nation motion. My thoughts are extensive as they include much history and what Canada is as a whole, so bear with me, but please hear me out.

The Bloc's proposed motion caught the Prime Minister off guard. Who'd suspect this motion would come forward given that the Bloc has been around since 1993? Why now?

Blame the Liberals. Duceppe saw the Quebec wing of the federal Liberals, mostly supporters of Iggy, about to have this debate at the Liberal Leadership Convention this weekend. Politics is all about timing and momentum, and Duceppe knew there would be no better time than this ever in his career. It had probably been in his mind for many, many years, but now was the time to play his cards.

Duceppe thought he had a royal flush, but then Harper quickly got a consensus, even from Bill Graham and Stephane Dion, and laid down the trump card with the motion put forth. 266-16 were in favour, including the Block, as Duceppe, not expecting this, announces that this motion of a Quebecois nation within a united Canada still plays into their hands. But does it?

Many pundits and top bloggers like Andrew Coyne and Warren Kinsella quickly lambash any notion of a nation within Canada as they say it opens the door for another Meech or Charlottetown. History showed that this caused Bouchard to split from the Mulroney coalition and start the Bloc Quebecois. Canadians rejected special gifts to Quebec and the separatist movement was alive and well again.

The last federal election in Quebec saw 10 Conservative MPs -- something no one was expecting, which drew support away from both soft-Liberals and soft-Bloc votes, or to put it another way, soft-federalists and soft-sovereignists, neither on the extreme end.

Constitutionally, the current status-quo with Canada stems from Trudeau, which were later solidified by Chretien.

Trudeau's extreme federalist policies were originally embraced by Canadians, but then later rejected as they obviously didn't work. The result was simply a bloated government and bureaucracy, deficits and higher debt, a stagnant economy, forced bilingualism, the National Energy Program, higher taxes, and more, all in the name of unity. Keeping in mind that Trudeau, as a student, protested against our participation in World War II while Nazi subs floated in the St. Lawrence and blew away civilian ships, and was a card carrying communist.

Mulroney tried to reform Trudeau's federalism, but failed, and Canada remained to be mired in Trudeaupian federalism for a long time.

But I digress, extreme federalists like Bob Rae and others are afraid to open the constitution as they believe it will mean more powers to Quebec and we'd have to go through another separatist vote, which would break up Canada.

Albertans, and westerners for the most part, don't like this Quebecois nation thing because the western provinces, if you look at their representation in the Senate, is a mere colony in comparison to PEIs, so why should they get more? That's why they rejected the two Accords. A bunch of years later, Quebec almost left, and many westerners were wishing it were actually true too.

But now we supposedly have the Clarity Act, which idea originated with Stephen Harper when he was an MP in the 90's, was finally brought forth by Chretien many years later to help stave off Quebec sliming its way out.

The simple fact is the the federal government is so bloated with such high taxes and overlaps so many provincial jurisdictions, the provinces and cities have resorted to begging. It's like a feudal system again.

Harper's pending discussions with the premiers to open the constitution but only related to spending powers is one step in realigning this country to its original and workable intention, not by dictatorial federal government. How the federal Liberals can create a health care system, give 50% to the provinces, then reduce that number to 11%, and continue to threaten provinces over their original jurisdiction makes no sense--neither does the federal government getting involved in education.

Health care and education have been the #1 argument by federal socialists to ensure taxes continue to stay high for their socialism program experiments and to bribe voters with their own money, when its actually the provinces, by the constitution, who have to deliver. This jurisdictional lack of respect by the feds began with Trudeau federalism and continues to this day. This is what fuels separatism in Quebec and the west. The worst part is that the feds have given so much money and attention to Quebec, they've become unknowingly dependent on it, but are now unphased by this bribery.

It's simply about respect. This country would be far better off fiscally and thus would be more efficient if the provinces were given that respect to spend their money their way in their areas of jurisdictional power. Why is it whenever a province goes about their business away from socialism, the lefties cry the need for a "stronger" federal government to prevent this stuff from happening? It's because socialists don't respect individuality or trust people to take care of themselves--don't worry the government, or nanny state will handle it. Look at the national day care debate, same thing.

Supereconomies like the European Union and the United States are examples of how independent states can unite on a common economy, on areas of military defense, and a set of democratic ideals. Scotland has its own parliament now within a United Kingdom. Even Australia and its states are in a better position than Canada, and we're falling behind.

We should be an imagine nation in motion...not stagnant in its development.

It's time Canada moved forward and not be held back by separatists and their threats, otherwise quit your whining and look at the big picture. I welcome the idea of opening the constitution again and so the federal government can stay out of everyone's pocket so provinces can be provinces again, (or individual nations within a confederation for all I care), and give respect where jurisdictional respect and democracy are long due.

And it's that respect which will unite all provinces and nations in Canada.

Debt and Taxes

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's report yesterday was excellent. Let's look at this shall we?

Incoming splitting -- It was hinted in the last election, but now it appears to be coming to fruition. You couldn't find a more a family-friendly middleclass tax proposal than this. This will save families thousands each year. Hmmm.. methinks that amount money could be nicely applied to, I dunno, let's say... saving for a child's tuition!

Lowering the EI rate -- Saves me a few bucks each paycheque. Considering the EI fund is bloated, this is obviously a wise move.

Debt and Taxes --

And he promised to begin using the interest rate savings from paying down the
$480-billion national debt to reduce income taxes each year. Last year's
debt reduction of $13.2 billion translates into $700 million in personal
income tax savings — to be shared among all taxpayers — next year, Flaherty
said. By 2011, this measure would generate $1.4 billion in tax savings
annually, he said. Liberal finance critic John McCallum scoffed at this
measure, saying the tax cuts would be "absolutely trivial."

Absolutely trivial? Did anyone notice the big tax cut the Liberals made several years ago? I didn't. As well, how else do the Liberals propose cutting taxes? Isn't the point of reducing debt to free up interest money to help pay for tax cuts? Duh. Sounds absolutely trivial to me.

Doing less --

Ontario Finance Minister Greg Sorbara said that Ottawa's plan to pay down more
federal debt and cut income taxes will leave Ontario in the lurch.
"I don't see any help there," Sorbara told reporters. "I see the potential of incurring
more expense because the federal government is doing less."

Exactly. Less. Oh, poor Liberal Ontario. Too afraid to cut their own spending I see. Not that the Liberals would ever cut taxes in that province, but now they can't go begging to the feds anymore and will actually have to do something instead of passing the buck.

Tearing down welfare walls --

Flaherty also said he would like to bring in a tax break to help low-income
earners who are struggling with the so-called "welfare wall," in which taking a
job results in a loss of social benefits that leaves them worse off than before.

Ah, there's something that would really help a lot of people, especially single parents.

Notice how this update doesn't give any ammo to the Liberals or NDP to say "the Tories are giving tax cuts for the rich". The Liberals can only complain that the cuts don't go far enough and the NDP can only say, as MP Libby Davies said, that these measures will gut important social programs (although there's no plans to gut social programs).

Methinks the middle-class voters the Conservatives have locked up can read through this socialist tripe.

I'm already looking forward to the next election.

Waiting to exhale...

I'm a global warming skeptic--meaning that I don't believe the hype and environazi claims that CO2 levels have everything to do with global temperature and climate change.

It seems that the way the media (and Al Gore) spin and sensationalize climate change into doomsday scenarios which scare people into believing that carbon taxes will circumvent our inevitable destruction, is foolish. I admit, sometimes, the spin is so powerful, I tend to sympathize, because hey, it's the environment. But it's not in this case. It's a global-socialist's (read: Maurice Strong, Paul Martin's buddy) wet dream.

Here's further reason why:

Both Drs. Ball and Soon went into long and scientific reasons why they
believe there is no link between rising CO2 levels and rising Earth
temperatures, even forwarding complicated scientific articles and papers for me
to read.

Both men agree since 1680, the tail-end of the Little Ice Age, the world has been warming, but they attribute most of the warming to sun cycles, not CO2 -- which makes up less than 4% of the atmosphere.

Indeed, ice-core data show when CO2 levels were 16 times higher than they are today, the world was covered in ice!

"The world has actually been cooling since 1998 even though man-made CO2 levels have increased," said Ball, from his home in Victoria, "but I bet that's not going to be mentioned in Nairobi."

Call it an "inconvenient truth."

"If their theory is correct, that increased CO2 levels causes warming, then the temperatures should be going up all the time, but they're not," pointed out Ball.
Dr. Soon gets more poetic. "Looking for the climate impact of CO2 is really like searching for a needle in the haystack.

"The idea that you have a CO2 knob that you can adjust up and down just to
get an optimal climate is a great flaw in the non-scientific discussion of global warming," added Soon.