Canada Formally Withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol: "Kyoto Is an Impediment"

From AFP (12/12/2011):

OTTAWA — Canada became the first country to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, saying the pact on cutting carbon emissions was preventing the world from effectively tackling climate change.

"We are invoking Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from Kyoto," Environment Minister Peter Kent said following a marathon UN climate conference in South Africa, at which nations agreed to a new roadmap for worldwide action.

The landmark pact reached in 1997 is the only global treaty that sets down targeted curbs in global emissions.

But those curbs apply only to rich countries, excluding the United States, which has refused to ratify the accord.

"Kyoto is not the path forward for a global solution to climate change," Kent said. "If anything, it's an impediment.

"We believe that a new agreement with legally binding commitments for all major emitters that allows us as a country to continue to generate jobs and economic growth represents the path forward."

Canada agreed under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions to 6.0 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, but its emissions of the gases blamed for damaging Earth's fragile climate system have instead increased sharply.

Saying the targets agreed to by a previous Liberal administration were unattainable, Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government last year unveiled its own measures aimed at curbing emissions, in line with US efforts.

Pulling out of Kyoto now allows Canada to avoid paying penalties of up to CAN$14 billion (US$13.6 billion) for missing its targets.

Kent also cited major impacts on Canada's economy that will be avoided by withdrawing from the treaty.

"Under Kyoto, Canada is facing radical and irresponsible choices if we're to avoid punishing multi-billion-dollar payments," Kent said, noting that Canada produces barely two percent of global emissions.

"To meet the targets under Kyoto for 2012 would be the equivalent of either removing every car, truck, ATV, tractor, ambulance, police car, and vehicle of every kind from Canadian roads or closing down the entire farming and agricultural sector and cutting heat to every home, office, hospital, factory, and building in Canada."

For Kyoto supporters, the anticipated Canadian pullout was expected to be a symbolic blow and badly damage a UN climate process already weakened by divisions.

Last week at the UN climate conference in Durban, South Africa, Kent had already said that Kyoto was "in the past" for Canada.

"It is an agreement that covers fewer than 30 percent of global emissions, by some estimates 15 percent or less," the Canadian minister said.

The conference on Sunday approved a roadmap towards an accord that for the first time will bring all major greenhouse-gas emitters under a single legal roof.

If approved as scheduled in 2015, the pact will be operational from 2020 and become the prime weapon in the fight against climate change.

But environmentalists have called it porous.

Kent said that in the meantime, Canada would continue to try to reduce its emissions under a domestic plan that calls for a 20 percent cut from 2006 levels by 2020, or as critics point out, a mere three percent from 1990 levels.

The latest data last year showed that Canadian carbon emissions were currently up more than 35 percent from 1990.

Tweet

Climate Experts in 2000: "Snowfalls Are a Thing of the Past"

As much of the UK and the continental Europe remain frozen shut, it is amusing for the non-warmers to re-read the article from March 2000 in which a leading researcher from University of East Anglia (of "Climategate" fame) proclaimed:

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is."

From Independent, 3/20/2000:

Britain's winter ends tomorrow with further indications of a striking environmental change: snow is starting to disappear from our lives.

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only fewer white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

The first two months of 2000 were virtually free of significant snowfall in much of lowland Britain, and December brought only moderate snowfall in the South-east. It is the continuation of a trend that has been increasingly visible in the past 15 years: in the south of England, for instance, from 1970 to 1995 snow and sleet fell for an average of 3.7 days, while from 1988 to 1995 the average was 0.7 days. London's last substantial snowfall was in February 1991.

Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

In case you haven't followed these scientists and their babbling, the narrative has shifted to "global warming produces extreme weather."

They don't give up easily, do they, the Algores of the world?

But as for the UK children not knowing what snow is, that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon:

Tweet

UK Telegraph: "Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world"

Remember the "global warming" disaster in Copenhagen last year?

So-called scientists, politicians, and representatives from big business who are very keen on profiting from the "global warming" to the tune of $12 trillion dollars are flying in on their fancy jets to Cancun, Mexico, to hold another "climate" conference in a super-fancy resort built on a strip of land that used to be a ecologically sensitive mangrove swamp with pristine beaches and rainforests.

These so-called scientists are already lecturing us that the developed countries like UK should be put on a rationing system just like during the World War II and halt any growth for 20 years to save the planet from the "global warming".

Talk about hypocricy.

And PR disaster.

UK's Telegraph reports:

In a series of papers published by the Royal Society, physicists and chemists from some of world’s most respected scientific institutions, including Oxford University and the Met Office, agreed that current plans to tackle global warming are not enough.

Unless emissions are reduced dramatically in the next ten years the world is set to see temperatures rise by more than 4C (7.2F) by as early as the 2060s, causing floods, droughts and mass migration.

As the world meets in Cancun, Mexico for the latest round of United Nations talks on climate change, the influential academics called for much tougher measures to cut carbon emissions.

In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

...Prof Anderson insisted that halting growth in the rich world does not necessarily mean a recession or a worse lifestyle, it just means making adjustments in everyday life such as using public transport and wearing a sweater rather than turning on the heating.

Sure, sure. I'm sure he will be delivering his excellent paper in a super-fancy resort in Cancun, if he can take the time off from his golf on a course designed by Jack Nicklaus or relaxing in a jaccuzzi eating shrimp.

By the way, Cancun means "a nest of serpents". Indeed.

Tweet

Climategate Update: Chicago Climate Exchange Flatlining

Ah, some poetic justice meted out by a free market...

Anthony Watts at Watts With That blog posts:

Chicago Climate Exchange still flatlining – employee cuts
(8/13/2010 Watts With That)

From the “unsustainable business” department, who wants carbon at 10 cents a ton? Apparently, nobody. Data below as of August 8 2010:

Source: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf

From Reuters, news of layoffs. At least their carbon footprint will be lower…

ICE cuts staff at Chicago Climate Exchange-sources

* ICE to cut around half of 50-person CCX workforce

* 1st round of layoffs began July 23, more to come in autumn

* Sources cite U.S. climate inaction as main reason for cuts

* ICE collecting feedback on what to do with climate bourse

[The entire post at the link above.]

Oh BTW, "global COOLING" is what Bilderbergers were apparently concerned about, not "global warming". Wonder why the food futures have been going up? Wonder why the super rich are reported to be buying gold by the ton?

And Algore is still peddling global warming, and so is this despicable organization called 1010global.org (warming: the link goes to their graphic promo video where they blow up children to reduce carbon footprint).

Tweet

"Environmental Militant" or "Eco-Terrorist"?

The left-leaning US media calls James J. Lee an "enviromental militant". What a peculiar phrase.

The British tabloid calls him for what he is, an "eco-terrorist". Thank you, Daily Mail.

I took a look at this guy's "manifesto", couldn't get past the fifth word of the text when I encountered a spelling error. It's "its", Mr. Lee, not "it's"!

Whatever happened to "global warming" anyway?

Telegraph UK's James Delingpole who busted open the "climategate" writes:

James Lee is Al Gore is Prince Charles is the Unabomber (9/2/2010 Telegraph UK)

"Al Gore’s Church of Climatism has claimed a new glorious martyr. His name is James Lee – the Discovery channel attempted eco-suicide-bomber – and if he’d had his way he wouldn’t have been the only one who ended up in the great recycling bin in the sky. That’s because, as far as the late James Lee was concerned, humans like the innocent Discovery channel employees he held hostage are the scum of the earth.

"Just read some of the manifesto he posted on the internet and see for yourself:

The humans? The planet does not need humans.

You MUST KNOW the human population is behind all the pollution and problems in the world, and YET you encourage the exact opposite instead of discouraging human growth and procreation. Surely you MUST ALREADY KNOW this!

"Does this sound like the ravings of a sad, deranged loner on the wilder fringes of eco-fascist lunacy? Not to me it doesn’t. Strip away the block capitals and what you have, word for word, is the core manifesto of the entire global green movement.

"...What’s really depressing is that the philosophy expressed in James Lee’s (and the Unabomber’s) manifesto – which is also, incidentally, the philosophy expressed in Al Gore’s The Earth In Balance – is also the philosophy that is taught every day to our children in their schools: the world is fragile; human beings are a blot on the landscape; through our greed and selfishness we make everything worse; really it would be better if we vanished altogether and let all the lovely pure noble animals take over.

"It’s time we woke up to the threat posed by this mass brainwashing of the younger generation. We worry, rightly, about those Muslim children who are being indoctrinated with the extreme Wahaabist version of their faith. Yet we seem astonishingly complacent that every day, in schools of every kind throughout the Western world, our children are being taught by well-meaning teachers to view their world and culture through exactly the same anti-capitalist, anti-human, anti-growth eyes as James Lee and the Unabomber.

"The modern environmental movement is not kind, caring or gentle. It is a series of ticking time bombs waiting to blow up in our face." [Emphasis is mine. For the entire article, follow the link above.]

"Does this sound like the ravings of a sad, deranged loner on the wilder fringes of eco-fascist lunacy? Not to me it doesn’t. "

Not to me either. I've met one too many, otherwise gentle and well-meaning adults who earnestly believe forced sterilization and forced abortion are the excellent ideas to "save the planet" (whatever that means). I've also met one too many children who tell me "people are bad" (particularly the white, male kind) because "they destroy the planet". They eagerly tell me that's what their teachers tell them at school (so that must be right).

Tweet

World May Not Be Warming, Says Scientists

According to U.N.'s climate panel IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), "global warming" is "unequivocal".

Britain's Times Online tells us part of what kind of science has been behind the global warming: thousands of weather stations around the globe, monitoring the temperature change over the past 150 years.

You would think that's the solid, scientific data that you can't dispute. Far from it, it turns out.

World may not be warming, say scientists
(Jonathan Leake, Times Online 2/14/2010)

"The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

"In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was “unequivocal”.

"It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

"“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.

"The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

"These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. " [The article continues.]

Good, now even the scientists are talking about "urban heat island", which has been dismissed as urban myth, or worse, crackpot pseudo-science.

The article mentions different ways the weather stations could have distorted the number:

• weather stations sitting right next to air conditioning units
• weather stations on waste treatment plants
• weather station at Rome airport, catching jet exhaust fumes
• weather station next to an incinerator
• weather station surrounded by heat-generating buildings

What kind of science behind global warming? Is it a science?

By the way, if you are still worried about Himalayan glaciers melting away by 2035, as IPCC told you in 2007, rest assured. It was a typo that no one at IPCC caught. The person at IPCC who copied the original study must be dyslexic. It was 2350, not 2035. Duh.

Tweet

More on 'Googlegate' and 'Climategate'

I knew something didn't smell right with the article by Lawrence Solomon (my yesterday's post).

Here's a better searched article on the issue by Danny Sullivan in December 2009, which I got from a LRC Blog post by Walter Block:

Of Climategate, Googlegate & When Stories Got Too Long
(12/1/2009, Search Engine Land)

Reading the article, I know now that:

1. It all started with U.K. Telegraph's James Delingpole when he found out that his colleague's article on 'climategate' disappeared from Google. Lawrence Solomon's article didn't even mention any of that.

2. If you search with +climategate to eliminate possible synonyms and alternative spellings, the result is different (see below for more).

3. The particular article by Delingpole's colleague got too long (1.3MB in HTML in December - that's huge for HTML) because of the rapidly expanding comment section that it was automatically dropped from Google News.

4. U.K. Telegraph had attacked Google in the past for showing its stories.

5. If you type the article title in Google regular search, it does show up.

6. As to 'climategate' not suggested with Google Suggest, it may be that, if not enough people are searching the term on that particular day or hour, Google Suggest doesn't suggest 'climategate' when you type in 'cli' or 'clima' or whatever. (Or it may be more personal; if you don't search that term often enough, Google Search won't suggest. More later.)

Now, let us try the qualified search +climategate (the entire word) on Google and Microsoft's Bing, and Yahoo and compare the results:

Google: 9,270,000
Bing: 286,000
Yahoo: 21,900,000

Or using the exact phrase search "climategate":

Google: 9,270,000
Bing: 57,400,000
Yahoo: 6,520,000

The winner, if just look at the search result numbers, is actually Google. Exact phrase or the entire word as is, in this case, shouldn't make any difference.

The articles that come to the top today:

Google: (top) Climatic Research Unit hacking incident - wikipedia; (2nd) Climategate: the final nail in the coffin.. - Telegraph U.K.
Bing: (top) Climategate Document Database; (2nd) Climategate: the final nail in the coffin... - Telegraph U.K.
Yahoo: (top) Climategate| Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's .... (2nd) Climatic Research Unit hacking incident - wikipedia

As to Bing's high number (57 million) when you search with "climategate", my guess is that the search engine picks up any article, any site out there that contains "climate" and/or "gate", whereas Google may pick up only "climategate" the scandal. Who knows. I don't. As I said in my previous post, I don't use Bing for my daily search.

Top 3 search suggestions that come up when I type "cli" today:

Google: clip art, cliff note, climategate
Bing: clintonbushhaitifund.org, clip art, clint eastwood (now that's funny)
Yahoo: clip art, kim clijsters, clinique

Top 3 search suggeestions that come up when I type "clim" today:

Google: climategate, climate change, climate
Bing: climbing gyms, climategate, climate change
Yahoo: clima, climate change, climb

So much for Solomon's article that I posted yesterday, which now looks to me like a rather uninformed smear piece on Google. His conclusion, "The bottom line? Google is as inscrutable as the Chinese, and perhaps no less corrupt. For safe searches, you’re best off with Bing", is simply absurd. There is no bottom line here, but his own flimsy conclusion from cursory observation or from emails from his readers. I am happy to know Mr. Solomon finds Bing excellent for his search, but no thank you, not for me.

How he can say Microsoft's Bing is safe, I have no idea. If the search engine is safe because it returns all the results that contains 'climate' or 'gate or both when you look up 'climategate', I have to infer that "safe" means "useless".

And shame on me for not researching further first.

Tweet

Bloomberg: French Constitutional Court Rejects Carbon Tax

After the disaster in Copenhagen, global warmers seem to have gone awfully quiet around the world. Now, the French constitutional court rejected a carbon emission tax as inequitable.

French Constitutional Court Rejects Carbon Tax
(12/30/09 Bloomberg)

"France’s constitutional court rejected a proposed tax on carbon emissions, saying a web of exemptions violated the principal of equality and rendered efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions ineffective.

"The government said it will make new proposals on Jan. 20.

"The tax, which would have started on Jan. 1, was set at 17 euros ($24.38) per ton of carbon-dioxide emissions, President Nicolas Sarkozy said in September. To make the tax more palatable, he partially or fully exempted power plants, public transport, airlines, farming and fishing, as well as 1,018 older cement, steel and glass factories.

"In all, 93 percent of all industrial carbon emissions in France would have avoided paying the full tax, the constitutional court said in a decision published on its Web site. The tax would have fallen disproportionately on fuel for heating and cars, it said.

"“The court ruled that the system of exemptions, due to their extensive nature, were contrary to the objective of fighting global warming and contravene the principle of equality before the tax system,” the court said.

"The court rejected all the articles relating to the carbon tax in the government’s 2010 budget."

According to the article, it is the Socialist-led opposition who opposes the carbon tax in France, as hurting the poor and handicap employers.

The cap and trade scheme advocated by the U.S. administration and Democratic Congress is even worse. Polluting industries get to pass the cost of carbon credit to the consumers almost entirely, and the middleman (i.e. the government) get to skim off of the consumers by taking from some and giving it to others as subsidies and credits.

Tweet

Chinese Snub Obama in Copenhagen

not once but twice in the same day.

Obama must have pissed off Chinese very badly. I don't think this is a typical Chinese antic, for, after all, they are face- and protocol-conscious East Asians. The president had better hope Chinese will not stop buying Treasuries.

China's delaying tactics threaten climate deal
(Chris Green, 12/18/09 The Independent)

"China is attempting to scupper chances of a comprehenive agreement at the Copenhagen climate summit by using delaying tactics, sources inside the negotiations have told The Independent.

"At an emergency meeting convened at the Bella Center this morning, Barack Obama and Gordon Brown assembled 26 heads of state in an attempt to revive a deal. But China's Premier Wen Jiabao did not attend and was replaced by vice foreign minister He Yafei.

"This afternoon, the US president and his secretary of state Hillary Clinton called another meeting with China, but were snubbed again when only three low-level Chinese delegates arrived."

[Not even the foreign minister himself. Ouch.]

"According to a high level source, the US president clearly regarded Premier Wen’s absence as a major diplomatic insult, and snapped: “It would be nice to negotiate with somebody who can make political decisions.”

It looks like the U.S. president has made things worse by going to Copenhagen. His speech had a frigid reception, leaving Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to continue to smell "sulpher". Bullying Chinese clearly backfired and now the Chinese are pissed, and he is on the way back to Washington D.C. before the final vote, because of blizzard in D.C..

Copenhagen seems to have a bad juju for Obama. In retrospect, his trip to Copenhagen for Chicago's Olympic bid may have been a dry-run for the latest snub.

Tweet

Climategate: Gore Falsifies the Record

or he misspoke. (Ooo I hate that word.)

This from Andrew Bolt of Australia's Herald Sun, regarding Slate magazine's Q&A with Al Gore over global warming, those pesky leaked emails, and his new book (what a surprise). Andrew Bolt has other excellent posts on global warming and the "Climategate".

(Remember that Australia's Senate voted down the government's bill on carbon trading recently, partly thanks to the "Climategate" emails.)

Climategate: Gore falsifies the record (12/9/09, Herald Sun, Australia)
[emphasis is original]

"Al Gore has studied the Climategate emails with his typically rigorous eye and dismissed them as mere piffle:

Q: How damaging to your argument was the disclosure of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University?

A: To paraphrase Shakespeare, it’s sound and fury signifying nothing. I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus.

" And in case you think that was a mere slip of the tongue:

Q: There is a sense in these e-mails, though, that data was hidden and hoarded, which is the opposite of the case you make [in your book] about having an open and fair debate.

A: I think it’s been taken wildly out of context. The discussion you’re referring to was about two papers that two of these scientists felt shouldn’t be accepted as part of the IPCC report. Both of them, in fact, were included, referenced, and discussed. So an e-mail exchange more than 10 years ago including somebody’s opinion that a particular study isn’t any good is one thing, but the fact that the study ended up being included and discussed anyway is a more powerful comment on what the result of the scientific process really is.

"In fact, thrice denied:

These people are examining what they can or should do to deal with the P.R.
dimensions of this, but where the scientific consensus is concerned, it’s completely unchanged. What we’re seeing is a set of changes worldwide that just make this discussion over 10-year-old e-mails kind of silly.

"In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous email urging other Climategate scientists to delete emails is from last year.

"How closely did Gore read these emails? Did he actually read any at all? Was he lying or just terribly mistaken? What else has he got wrong?"


It's Newspeak, Mr. Bolt. "One month ago" means "10-years ago", and "two months ago" means "more than 10 years ago", by imperious Al Gore's decree. Well, Mr. Gore has a lot depending on the global consensus on global warming and implementation of cap and trade globally.

What I want to ask in addition is this: Since when is the validity of science determined by consensus?

If the age of the planet earth had been determined by the consensus, it would have stayed at 100 million years, the number mathematically derived by the very influential and brilliant physicist (Lord Kelvin). For the next three decades, it stayed that way during which scientists tried their best to come up with the evidence that would justify Lord Kelvin's conclusion. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

This brilliant conclusion about the age of the planet, agreed upon by most scientists, was rudely overturned by empirical evidence: Discovery of radioactivity that threw a monkey wrench into Lord Kelvin's meticulous calculation on thermodynamics. (For more, please read the article by David Deming, titled "Global Warming and the Age of the Earth: A Lesson on the Nature of Scientific Knowledge", 12/3/09 Lewrockwell.com)

But the age of the planet didn't affect nation's GDP or welfare of the nation's inhabitants the way this idea of global warming is going to affect.

Mr. Gore, himself a non-scientist, seems to have decided science should be run like politics - compromise, consensus, arm-twisting, silencing the opponent, outspending the opponent to win the race. And partly thanks to people like Mr. Gore, science, particularly climate science, has become exactly that: a branch of politics.

Another thing I want to ask is about Slate: Were they also unaware that the emails were as recent as a month ago? Or are they taking part in perpetuating this new myth created by Al Gore that those emails were "more than 10 years ago"?

Tweet

CO2 Is a Dangerous Pollutant

so declared the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday.

The agency is dutifully doing the bidding of the administration just in time for the Copenhagen climate summit. I will believe that when these officials at the agency show us the way by stopping breathing completely in order to save the planet.

Here's a take on the issue by the Heritage Foundation:

EPA Formally Declares CO2 a Dangerous Pollutant
(12/7/09 The Foundry, Heritage Foundation)

"Step aside, elected Members of Congress. If you can’t pass cap and trade legislation, The Environmental Protection Agency will move in with massively complex and costly regulations that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy. They announced today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment." (The article continues. Click on the link above to read.)

This, despite the "Climategate" where the world's leading climate scientists are accused of falsifying the data to fit their theory of global warming.

The following article about the "Climategate" is about the only one posted on the mainstream media outlets. The author, Declan McCullah, has written good articles on health care "reform" and climate change legislation.

ClimateGate Could Threaten Copenhagen Climate Deal
(Declan McCullah, 12/7/09, CBS News)

Soon, the government will decree that:

War is peace;
Fiscal responsibility means profligate spending;
Recession/Depression is over;
Only the government can save you;
The world is flat;
The sun revolves around the earth, again;
Sky is falling.

What else?

Ooops forgot the obvious.

The earth is warming because of pesky humans.

Tweet