Over the weekend I took the opportunity to download the zipped archive of the emails, program and data files, documents and the odd funny picture contained within the stolen archives. I've now read about half of the mail archive (approximately 500 messages of the 1077 total), with particular emphasis on emails relating to peer review, data sets, reporters, program issues and the like.

The conclusion I have reached is that there is no smoking gun here, just a lot of diverse people from all over the world all working from within a fish bowl to get to the truth of the matter.

p.s. The video is very entertaining but also a little scary given the cameo appearances by idiots-in-chief Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and others. Joining them are a legion of not-so-famous bloggers stewing away in their dirty underwear crying "aha!" too as they desperately grab on to out of context emails as "proof" that supports their long-held desires to see human kind continue to destroy our lovely blue and green planet.

Greenpeace has put some bitingly smart advertising up in the Copenhagen airport.

[Canada] is now to climate what Japan is to whaling George Monbiot

The series (hat tip: Twitter retweet from LibArtsAndMinds) features apologetic world leaders 11 years from now. Recognize this fellow?

Click on image to see other country leaders in 2020...

In other pre-Copenhagen news this week, noted climate change activist George Monbiot in a widely read article in The Guardian labelled Canada an embarrassment. While I am deeply proud of our country, I am not blind to its failures and thus I must agree with Mr. Monbiot.

Jim Prentice, the third Conservative government environment minister in as many years, today put forward a weak retort in that same paper.

Greenpeace Canada is calling on Canadians to sign it's Kyoto-Plus petition, and is of course in high gear in the days leading up to Copenhagen. May the force be with you.

Disclaimer: I like Jim Prentice and find him to be one of the truly honourable people in politics. In this case I do not at all agree with what he is saying, but as a person of principle he is at least asserting his position and plans in a bluntly unequivocal manner. That said, if it were in my power to do so I would see his government defeated for the position they are taking on climate change. The Conservative Party, as well as the co-founding Canadian Alliance Party (and it's forerunner the Reform Party) have either been denying climate change is an issue, or attempting to block any action on the issue, since, well, forever. Unfortunately, the Liberal record on the matter is equally abysmal. Those I'm sad to say are the unvarnished non-partisan facts.

By now it is old news that Stephen Harper will indeed go to the Copenhagen climate change summit, but only because U.S. president Barak Obama is attending.

What is not widely known is how desperately Stephen Harper had sought an excuse not to attend. Caught on film here's Stephen spending time in places he'd rather be than Copenhagen.

Stephen Harper would rather be in an Afghan prison than in Copenhagen. Click on image for full-size rendition.

The Liberals are running a mini-contest - submit your entries soon! See the Stephen Harper Anywhere But Copenhagen Photo Challenge page for more information.

The presenter offers an insightful yet humorous look at four outcomes for our future and makes a compelling case for action which stands up to scrutiny no matter which side of the debate one finds themselves sitting on.

New data from the World Resources Institute now includes GHG emissions statistics up to 2007. Canada has outpaced the U.S. on emissions growth (total and per-capita) for many years and this trend continues albeit at a faster pace as indicated by the 2007 data which occurred on Stephen Harper's watch.

By comparison other advanced economies have managed to reduce their total GHG output. France - heavily reliant on nuclear energy, has reduced emissions more than 5 percent since 1999. Of particular note are emissions from Sweden and Germany which are respectively 5 and 21 percent below their 1990 levels.

These northern European states appear to know a thing or two. Too bad our "made in Canada" Conservative thinkers aren't open to new ideas.

Matt Burrows at The Straight notes Jim Prentice is receiving a lump of coal just in time for Christmas as two non governmental organizations lambaste Canada as an environmental laggard (PDF)

Ignoring the forgettable Ambrose, there are two important differences between Prentice and Baird that matter: Baird isn't a threat to Stephen Harper, Prentice is.

Baird was pushed to Environment because irascible bombast is Harper's modus operandi when he intends to do nothing but make it look like he's doing something. If you want self-righteous anger and bombast, but no results, Baird's your man.

Sadly for Mr. Prentice, he's an honourable person who leaves a strong impression that he actually wants to achieve something positive no matter what job has been handed him. That's not a recipe for success in Harper's harem where the cream is curdled and tossed out, not allowed to float to the top.

Prentice won't be allowed to succeed on this file in part by the shackles imposed by his boss, and in part because he is from, well, Alberta. In the process his reputation as a straight dealer will be cut down a number of notches.

Its a scenario just as Stephen Harper ordered.

Stephen Harper on climate change:

“My party’s position on the Kyoto Protocol is clear and has been for a long time. We will oppose ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and its targets. We will work with the provinces and others to discourage the implementation of those targets. And we will rescind the targets when we have the opportunity to do so.” (Stephen Harper, Ottawa Citizen, November 22, 2002)

The UK government's meteorological branch, the Met Office, issued a statement yesterday entitled Global Warming Goes On:

Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand. The evidence is clear – the long-term trend in global temperatures is rising, and humans are largely responsible for this rise... longer term analyses have shown that current warming is being caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases which have accumulated in the atmosphere and intensified the greenhouse effect by absorbing more of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean.

This long-term warming trend is set to continue as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase. Inevitably this will lead to further impacts on our lives and the world’s natural ecosystems. Heatwaves and droughts are likely to become more prevalent; snow cover is projected to continue to diminish; and sea-ice to continue to shrink.

Global average temperature anomaly from 1975 to 2007, relative to the 1961-1990 average. The black line shows the annual figure. The red line shows the trend over the full 33 years.The blue lines show the varying rate of the trend over 10-year periods.

For Head In Sand Harper:

The methane time bomb (Sept. 23 2008, The Independent)

Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

In the past few days, the researchers have seen areas of sea foaming with gas bubbling up through "methane chimneys" rising from the sea floor. They believe that the sub-sea layer of permafrost, which has acted like a "lid" to prevent the gas from escaping, has melted away to allow methane to rise from underground deposits formed before the last ice age.

They have warned that this is likely to be linked with the rapid warming that the region has experienced in recent years.

Methane is about 20 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and many scientists fear that its release could accelerate global warming in a giant positive feedback where more atmospheric methane causes higher temperatures, leading to further permafrost melting and the release of yet more methane.

Its only a matter of time before Bully Baird seizes upon this, blames climate change on the Russians and the Conservatives will reiterate past deceptions they've deployed implying CO2 isn't an issue; its a natural by-product of breathing, and that plants will only grow better.

Its no secret - long time readers know I regard Harper as the most dangerous politician in the country and that I lament the passing of the Progressive Conservative party. The fundamental difference between the two is the PC Party was strongly pro-federalism and fundamentally centrist and moderate at its core.

The Conservative party believes in a different view of federalism where the central government is made to be as weak as possible, and their overall approach is only centrist and moderate in a superficial sense designed to last only for electoral purposes. Once a majority is in Harper's hand, we can look forward to decidedly radical change.

So its clear I can't support the CPC while Harper and his cronies are at the helm. Yet I won't poke only at them. Last week I indicated it was time to talk about Layton and the NDP so without further adieu...

You'll forgive me for critiquing Layton first through my jaded Harper lends but its true: my principal issue with Layton is he is so fixated on trying to help Stephen Harper destroy the Liberal Party that he's perfectly willing to sell his soul to the devil (yes, that would be Harper) damn the repercussions.

Sure, I realize Layton's strategy isn't a one-election gambit. But really, does he believe the Liberals won't come back stronger next time? It will happen. In the meantime I shudder to think that an effective Layton campaign might gain him a marginal number of additional seats yet lose the country to a Harper majority.

Still, this fixation of mine with Layton's short term / long term strategy aside, my real issue with the federal (and provincial) NDP is their climate change policy. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. Dan Garner, Ottawa Citizen

When Layton talks about "big polluters" he conveniently leaves out one of the largest... you and me. Avoiding talking about our own personal responsibility is a populist tactic that Harper employs. I'd hoped Jack was above that.

I'm all in favour of higher fuel costs and carbon taxes, seeing both as a necessary component of a workable greenhouse gas / migration away from fossil fuel strategy. We have to change our behaviour. If one really believes that climate change is a pressing serious global issue then one's politics will be informed by that belief. The NDP plan for the environment is only a start because it doesn't focus attention on personal responsibility and in that manner their plan is as bad as the flunking Conservative plan.

Here the Green and Liberal party policies make more sense. They are both designed as if they really believe it. Layton goes part way there while the Conservative plan goes nowhere. The Sierra Club has done a platform review (PDF) of the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal, and New Democrat parties. All parties get a passing grade except for the Conservatives who flunk right out with an F.

At this point in the election the environment isn't getting the prominence it should, thanks in no small part by the ruthlessly brilliant (and un-Canadian in my opinion) Conservative stream of attacks designed to cut that leg out from under Dion. Had the NDP also joined the carbon tax bandwagon, this would have pushed Harper into a corner. However I think Ms. May stands a chance at turning the page back to environmental issues.

If that does happen, both Harper and Layton have something to fear. Provincial NDP leader Carole James also has, quite wrongly in my opinion, put a lot on the line in opposing Gordon Campbell's carbon tax.

Eventually all modern economies in all jurisdictions will end up putting a real price on carbon. Even Stephen Harper will be forced to deal with this at some point. Any leader that says they will not put a price on carbon is woefully uninformed or lying. They all know they need to do it, that international pressure will one day force their hand. Best be honest with people now and get going.

Yes, I realize being honest with people is frequently a losing electoral strategy. Still, as inept a campaigner as Dion appears to be, I give him high marks for being committed enough to the issue that he's doing the impossible: trying to sell during a highly competitive election a difficult to understand policy that includes the word "tax". Maybe an advertisement of some regular folks having a coffee in a doughnut shop, calculating their Green Shift tax savings on an envelope... might make more headway with the average voter.

On the subject of energy taxation, the following article by Dan Garner, published today in the Ottawa Citizen, is a worthy read. Please go on past this excerpt:

Harper economics: Stephen Harper has a masters degree in economics. He is conservative. He says he understands how markets function and he prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

Gregory Mankiw is a professor at Harvard University and a world-renowned economist. He was chairman of U.S. President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers and adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. Mankiw definitely understands how markets function and he, too, prefers market solutions to public policy problems.

One might think Stephen Harper and Gregory Mankiw would agree on energy taxes. But one would be wrong. More >

Washington State University researchers recently completed a study concluding that consumption patterns, and human population growth, are the principal factors underlying our species' impact on the planet's ecology. Driving the Human Ecological Footprint, by Thomas Dietz, Eugene A. Rosa, and Richard York, puts the spotlight on population growth and affluence as the principle factors driving the growth in human-caused environmental stressors.

This comparative analysis shows that population size and affluence are the principal drivers of anthropogenic environmental stressors, while other widely postulated drivers (e.g. urbanization, economic structure, age distribution) have little effect. Similarly, increased education and life expectancy do not increase environmental stressors, suggesting that some aspects of human well-being can be improved with minimal environmental impact. Projecting to 2015, we suggest that increases in population and affluence will likely expand human impact on the environment by over one-third. Countering these driving forces would require increases in the efficiency of resource use of about 2% per year. More >

Hat tip: EnergyBulletin.net

Eleven of the warmest years of the past one hundred and fifty seven years have occurred in the past thirteen years, reports the BBC from the Bali climate change conference. 2007 placed among the top ten years despite the an overall cooling influence this year resulting from La Nina conditions.

Warmest 10 Years
1998     0.52C
2005     0.48C
2003     0.46C
2002     0.46C
2004     0.43C
2006     0.42C
2007     0.41C*
2001     0.40C
1997     0.36C
1995     0.28C

* provisional

In related news, at the Bali international climate change conference wrapping up today our country was awarded a record number of Fossil of the Day awards, an unwanted distinction doled out to those countries most seen as obstructing progress in climate change negotiations.

What a performance for Conservative Environment Minister John Baird, the all-blather no action minister and Stephen "Hot Air" Harper.