Drew, The author (Delingpole) is doing a bit of cherry picking himself. He comes across a bit confrontational, which I guess is necessary nowadays for anyone to be a popular commentator. Anyway, the chart he is showing is not a chart in support of the argument "Extreme weather events are increasing: yet another green propaganda myth". He is showing a chart of deaths due to extreme weather. This is not the same as the number of extreme events. Is it surprising that more people died of weather-related events in the 1920s-1940s? That was an era of world wars & their aftermath (not to mention a world-wide depression, antibiotics were just being discovered, viruses were not well understood). Many many posts ago, I put up a chart showing the increase in the number of billion-dollar weather events per year. This is also not the same as an increase in the number of events. It is more a function of our development along the coasts and short-term thought when it comes to civil planning. The chart that Delingpole shows is taken from data in the paper "Deaths and Death Rates from Extreme Weather Events: 1900-2008" (I.M Goklany) Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 14 Number 4 Winter 2009. The paper is definitely making the argument that the human costs of climate change are over dramatized. However, just looking at the data from the paper we cannot draw the conclusion that Delingpole is making. From the actual paper: Figure 1: The number of extreme climate events per decade There is likely better reporting of extreme events now as compared to the early 20th century; however this graph clearly shows the events are increasing. Figure 2: Deaths and death rates due to extreme climate events per decade This is the data from Delingpole's graph. He is showing the data from Figure 2 and making a statement contrary to Figure 1. Did he not see Figure 1 (didn't read the paper he is referencing?) or is he selectively reporting the data that fits with his argument? Either way lacks integrity both scientifically and journalistically. Here is a link that might be useful: Link to paper

It is a very important topic that is affecting all of us and as long participant in the discussion bring forth good well founded arguments, that some might disagree on, it is worth it. I am a believer in the sense that I do believe humankind can do something to slow down the global warming. We can limit our emissions of CO2, by depending less on fossil fuels and more on sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources as much as we can. It will take many decades ...perhaps 50-100 years before we see the results of these efforts. But we have to do it. Like the title of Jim´s daughters movie "The 11th Hour" we have been very slow to react and it is almost too late, but we can act according to the knowledge we have thus far. Different political perspectives must be put aside and a joint effort by every human and nation on this planet must work together on this. Yes there are also other big global problems that needs to be solved. It is my hope that we will work together and put national and political differences aside and make a determined effort to solves these problems. And yes Youngquinn it really is totally beyond the rest of the world that America soon is going to be totally isolated, and is the only so-called developed nation that has not ratified the KP. But It will not be long, everything points in the direction that America will have a new administration, lead by the Democrats ( After an election campaign that is probably going to be the worst charade of smearing each other the world has yet to see ) As if all the counting last time was not embarrassing enough for the so-called leading democracy in the World. And yes I have also noticed that the press in America is very silent ... I really wonder how free the press is. Boycotting those who beg to differ with the political establishment are commonplace ... Perhaps the newspapers in US fear that people will boycott them if the really write what is going on. It may be my relatively optimistic world view that makes me hope that we will find solutions how to deal with the climate change we are witnessing. Just like Bjørn Lomborg I hope the actions we will take is carefully considered, but like most I am afraid we are running out of time. I can only try to give my perspective and share the knowledge I posses. I am willing to listen to reasoned and documented arguments about what solutions and steps we need to take to try to prevent further global warming and how we deal with the climate changes we have to endure. Like I said earlier it is a complex issue and Americans are probably the most divided people, when it comes to debating this issue. The rest of the world pretty much had the discussion 15-10 years ago, they are having now. I am so happy for important movies like "An inconvenient Truth" and The 11th Hour. I do not totally agree Al Gores POWs brought forth in that movie. There are some flaws and errors and it may not become as bad as some of the scenarios in that movie. So we need to do something ... after careful consideration, but we need to think fast. And we need to be wiling to create a world and a planet that can give all humans a good life. We have the resources but lack the willingness, I feel that is worth promoting and fighting for. So thank you Kate And Youngquinn for thinking it is an important issue and for encouraging a reasoned debate. Niels

I do and I donâÂÂt agree with Tree Oracle in this instance. I do agree, that as long as corporations are allowed to spew gases into the atmosphere we canâÂÂt fix this. It's not just in this country though. And stripping the rainforest and clearing land for more development, doesn't help either. I also agree that the US government has some power to change that and has failed to do so. The article points to legislation being blocked by Democrats in coal producing states, and Republicans who question the science. IâÂÂm not positive that bribes are the reason action has not been taken, but I suspect that it is. I wonder would we get the country back on track if lobbyists were not allowed? I agree that Solar panels on every roof would make a big difference. It is quite an investment for the individual family to make, and if the government werenâÂÂt spending money on everything else, they could help fund it and make it a reality. But I think there has to be more that we all can do. What is frustrating to me, is that this latest article really didnâÂÂt offer any recommendations about what needs to happen, except to say we should pass legislation in the near future, but that it was unlikely to happen. We either have to change the status quo in Washington, or we have to work around them, if that is possible. IâÂÂm a big believer in grass roots action and I donâÂÂt think we can afford to sit back and wait for someone else to do something. And I think we all keep thinking that we won't have to make any personal sacrifices in the process, and I think that is unrealistic. But as gardeners who love the land and green spaces and beautiful gardens, I would think we would all be that much more motivated than the average person, to try to do something. I can't imagine that by 2050, we might be having 60 more days of over 90 degree temperatures in Massachusetts. That's just 25 years away. Maybe we could brainstorm ideas of what we could do? I was thinking of a massive letter writing effort. If we could agree on some basic things that need to happen and every person in the country wrote a letter and sent it to Congress all on the same day demanding it be done, would that have an effect? Or maybe we could find the funds to send our own lobbyists to Congress? And there are a lot of billionaires like Bill Gates who are putting their money to charities, perhaps we could appeal to them to fund solar panels? That is just off the top of my head and I realize I need to be better informed to come up with more specific ideas.

OK, I guess I need to explain this a bit better. My point of the record snowfall on Christmas Day was that there was one day out of 100 years that the media, and other humans, seemed to think was important. You are correct, there is nothing really important about it. I think that all would agree that in the grand scheme of things, it really doesn't mean anything. Likewise, the climate change / global warming people are trying to do the exact same thing on a larger scale. Rather than pointing at one day in a 100 years, they are looking at one decade in 100 years. Don't you think, in the grand scheme of things, it would be much more scientific and honest to look at something on a similar scale? 1 day in 36,500 days or 10 years in 36,500 years? As far as the quotes, again, I was trying to demonstrate that the media is making a big deal of a one day event. This are all quotes from Denver's Channel 7 web site, www.thedenverchannel.com They are not anything I made up. Again, another example of sensationalism. As far as being bold, I'm not sure where that came from. I'm not trying to be bold, I'm trying to make people think for themselves. Things rarely happen in this country (this world) unless someone is out to make a buck. When recycling was all the rage, there were a lot of people out there willing to pay extra to 'save the planet'. Pay extra for what? Let's look at an example of this. You pay someone to recycle your newspaper. The trash company sells / pays some recycler to take it away. You buy products made from recycled paper, and if it is labeled as 'green', you can bet you will pay more for it, even though it cost less (in processing and environmentally) to produce than paper goods made from virgin paper or wood pulp. (Compare prices between paper towels at the grocery store.) As far as who is making money on the global warming / CO2 credit / CO2 exchange hype, take a look at Al Gore's site: http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/carboncalculator/ Calculate your carbon footprint, and then go offset it by clicking on the text "OFFSET AN AVERAGE HOME or CAR NOW". It takes you to http://nativeenergy.com/pages/an_inconvenient_truth/29.php?afc=climatecrisis where YOU can PAY THEM $28 / month for THEM to use methane from a cow manure digester at THEIR dairy to heat and electrify THEIR farm. If you believe so strongly in this, how about paying me to grow some trees that I can donate to my town? It covers your carbon footprint, helps out the earth, makes me look good in the eyes of my community, and I can take the donation off on my taxes as a charitable contribution. Honestly, it's more effective than some of the other schemes out there that are being run by parent companies of logging companies who are convincing people to buy carbon credits, and then the companies replant clear cut areas in the Pacific North West. Another way of looking at this is to make people feel guilty about some problem (imagined...