Friends of Science billboard, seems sensible

Posted: March 19, 2014 by tchannon in Education, media, propaganda, Uncategorized

Photo credit: Ken Gregory Friends of Science 2014: Unrestricted use

Rather than hit people, tell them they are bad, a kinder approach, this apparently is a new Friends Of Science billboard. In the snow.

Is this good thinking or is the only way aggression?

Will it change any minds or is it affirmation?

I am sure they have a web site, yep,

People send me things. I hope this is not seen as too promotional.

Posted by Tim

  1. Michelle Stirling says:

    For those who agree that the sun has a major role in climate change – please feel free to to photoshop the billboard in YOUR HOME TOWN…and post on your blog or tweet it – and of course send or post it on our facebook page Facebook – friends of science Calgary
    Shouldn’t EVERYONE have the option of thinking about climate change in these terms?

  2. Gerry says:

    This is good thinking, but it doesn’t always work. To be more specific, it doesn’t work with people who think charts are only ways of lying with statistics. You can explain to them that the charts in question contain non-statistical data and, of course, always provide a link to the source, but it doesn’t help because these people only seem to respond to pronouncements by political “authorities” that they mistakenly trust, and believe that any information that doesn’t agree with said authorities must originate from sources that they don’t trust, like Big Oil or the Koch brothers. When I pointed out to one of them that David Koch is a PBS sponsor of the high quality NOVA science TV series, that only seemed to further alienate this particular person.

  3. Ken Gregory says:

    I took the picture at 12:40 today. The colors of the sun in the picture didn’t turn out as well as I hoped. It looked better in person. It is a digital billboard. Perhaps I needed to use some other camera setting. The actual image that was uploaded to the billboard is:

    The billboard is on Airport Trail, near the Calgary International Airport.

  4. Choey Tuqiri says:

    It’s a nice billboard but I doubt it will change any minds. We’re dealing with a religion. There is no amount of truth, evidence, data or even painful personal experience that will separate a True Believer from his True Beliefs.

  5. michael hart says:

    I certainly don’t see it as too promotional, Tim.

    I worry about how public perceptions of publicly-funded science may be tainted by the global warming débâcle. Most public science funding doesn’t actually go towards ‘climate-change’ and furry animals, despite what many might justifiably think from reading either the BBC science&environment coverage, or WUWT. There is plenty that is good that I would like to save.

  6. michael hart says:

    And I’m delighted that someone has the money and is willing to spend it on such billboards. Whether it works, or not…..?

  7. michael hart says:

    Of course, I forgot to say that it may, or may not, be the sun, depending on the timescale and the changes being referred to. But that billboard is not provably any more wrong/right/dishonest than what is printed every day in the MSM.
    Three posts. I’m done.

  8. tchannon says:

    A rule in psychology but widely understood is that you cannot change anyone. People change themselves.

  9. Michelle Stirling says:

    True. We don’t ask anyone to change. We simply offer an alternative perspective that they may not have thought about, in visual terms that demonstrate what’s up on earth is pretty small peansut to what might be ‘out there’… and we offer people freedom from that sense of personal guilt that much of the AGW crowd have foisted upon average ordinary citizens who ‘didn’t do anything to anyone’…yet are made to feel like criminals. We’ll see how it plays..

  10. Michelle Stirling says:

    We don’t ask people to change their minds because of a billboard. We only ask for open debate. The idea of the billboard was to offer people alternative ideas about climate change and to set things in proportion. Many people are unsure or questioning about the maintsream mantra, but have never been given optional ideas. Our website has a broad spectrum of information about climate change factor – we had to choose ‘one’ in order to compete with the ‘carbon pollution’ mantra – but we dont’ exclude the many factors. Likewise, we do sponsor debates and speakers who oppose our view from times to time – because our intention is to have a real scientific debate on climate science. We do not require readers and web surfers to agree with us – only to think.

  11. Ken Gregory says:

    The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change’s report “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science” was authored by 47 climate scientists and published in September 2013. The authors reviewed the scientific literature and produced a report that is comprehensive, objective, and faithful to the scientific method. Unlike the IPCC, it was not restricted to consider only human-caused climate change. The NIPCC report concluded:

    “The Sun may have contributed as much as 66% of the observed twentieth century warming, and perhaps more.” Page 11 from:

    Click to access Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

  12. Ken Gregory says:

    Photo credit: Ken Gregory Friends of Science 2014 Unrestricted use.

  13. Truthseeker says:

    If people believe that bad stuff because they have been told, maybe they will believe the good stuff if they are told that instead.

    Worth a try.

  14. AlecM says:

    My mate Spartacusisfree has written to Judith Curry:

    “Spartacusisfree | March 19, 2014 at 3:54 am |
    To illustrate the problem posed by the AAAS and the lefty willing dupes who run it, we must examine the central thesis in Climate Alchemy, the main diagram in Trenberth et al. 2009 ‘Energy Budget’:

    They add the 333 W/m^2 mean atmospheric ‘Radiation Field’ you get from an instrument from Meteorology, the ‘Pyrgeometer’, to the 63 W/m^2 IR part of 161 W/m^2 Solar SW converted to heat at the surface. This makes the 396 W/m^2 ‘black body’ surface RF. A pyrgeometer really estimates temperature. This is put in the ‘Stefan-Boltzmann’ equation to make the RF. They wrongly assume it to be a real energy flux when it is the potential energy flux to a sink at absolute zero.

    This distinction is lost to most people. Willing dupes didn’t have a chance because radiative physics is only known properly to a few, mainly process engineers like me. Most science graduates are easily deceived. Hence Climate Alchemists push 6.3 times more IR energy into the modelled atmosphere. 2/3rds is offset by another Big Mistake at Top of Atmosphere, which hypothetically cools it. The net result is imaginary extra evaporation from the seas. They cheat again by using about 25% imaginary extra cooling by low level clouds in ‘hind-casting’.

    The resultant imaginary ‘positive feedback’ easily deceived the AAAS. it takes real experts to sort out fraud. The simple fact is that processes in the atmosphere combine to make CO2-AGW near zero and the real AGW, from polluted clouds, slowed down over a decade ago. The willing dupes who have spent a lifetime dreaming of using fake CO2-AGW to destroy capitalism are now panicking and writing apocalyptic articles.”

    The recent human part of biofeedback via aerosols, about 0.5 K increase in GHE, was on top of ~ 9 K increase in GHE from the Last Glacial Maximum. That was from phytoplankton and land vegetation, and modifies cloud-droplet coarsening kinetics, fast in ice ages, slow now. Simples……

  15. timspence10 says:

    It’s good to go, and I like that it says ‘main driver’.

    Give the alarmists some of their own medicine, if it only serves to annoy them then it’s value for money 😉

  16. tallbloke says:

    tchannon says:
    March 19, 2014 at 3:56 am
    A rule in psychology but widely understood is that you cannot change anyone. People change themselves.

    If that was entirely true, the marketing industry wouldn’t be worth the multibillion$ it is. People are so used to any alternative viewpoints being censored from the climate debate that they are passively habituated to the idea that there is no alternative viewpoint.

    All the opinion polls have found that most people don’t treat ‘climate change’ as a high priority issue any more, and that it is becoming lower priority year by year. The alarmists think that’s because people don’t like to contemplate bad news. I think it’s because people have realised at the back of their minds that the alarmists have overplayed their position.

    What is needed is something which brings that that realisation to the front of their minds.
    This billboard is great. Well done Ken Gregory and all at Friends of Science.

  17. new tactics by the alarmists
    Developed in the AGW engine room in Australia

    Expect media overload

    Forget the Moncktonites, disregard the Boltists, and snub the Abbottsians. Ignore them, step around them, or walk over them. Drown them not just with sensible conversations, but with useful actions. Flood the airwaves and apply tactics advertisers have successfully used for years.

    What we need now is to become comfortable with the idea that the ends will justify the means. We actually need more opinions, appearing more often and expressed more noisily than ever before

  18. tom0mason says:

    An open letter to the IPCC

    Dear R. K. Pachauri and the Panel of the IPCC,
    You don’t know me or my business but I feel the need to write to you. As you are the chair of the IPCC, an august committee that works on the settled science of climate change, please could you explain your recent changes in the downgrading of the effect of CO2.
    You see you are ruining my business! Here at Sustainable Glazing ™ (with CCS Heat Capture Insulation®) we make double glazing with the unique Carbon Capture and Storage gas layer that allows us to market our products with the CO2 heat storing windows and glazing. Unfortunately your panel has chosen, yet again, to reduce the radiative forcing of CO2 and I’m having to make our customers aware of this downgrading, and change all of our advertising to reflect these changes. THIS HAS COST US MONEY!
    Please sir, your committee said that the figures for these effects were settled, as was the science based on these effects.
    This is costing us money!
    I enclose an itemize bill for the excess costs, please pay promptly.

    Tom Mason,
    Chief Technology Officer, Sustainable Glazing™


  19. RKPachauri (aka AlecM) says:


    Thank you for your letter of the 19th May.

    As you will have read in AR5 Summary for Policy Makers, we still hold to our central estimate of CO2 Climate Sensitivity of 3.6 K. however, we have widened the range a bit, lower and higher. This is so we can increase our confidence level to 95%.

    As for your product, what you need to do is to introduce more ‘back radiation’ by installing a heating element in the outer glass of your unit. Then the heat created at the inner pane will be satisfactory.

    Yours sincerely,

    R K Pachauri (Railway Engineer, Failed)

  20. geran says:

    AlecM says:
    March 19, 2014 at 8:07 am
    >>>>> More please!

    tallbloke says:
    March 19, 2014 at 8:31 am
    >>>>> Concur.

    tom0mason says:
    March 19, 2014 at 10:35 am
    >>>>> “Enclosed bill” was hilarious!

  21. AlecM, you are on the mark. The trouble is that no so-called climate scientist (including sceptical and lukewarmers) can understand your analysis so they ignore it and continue to bang on about forcings and feedback in black box models which have no relation to the complex engineering science actually occurring in different parts of the atmosphere around the globe at any time.

  22. tchannon says:

    Tallbloke, .. “If that was entirely true, the marketing industry wouldn’t be worth the multibillion$ it is.”

    Ah yes, both are true, which will teach me to deliberately omit the rest as too long. The subject of change is massive. The social / crowd / hormone / mass behaviour is very strong.

    Talking an individual out of something inherent or ingrained where that is dysfunction but including eg. talking out of a cult is impossible.

    I’d best drop the rest as not appropriate for brief blog comments.

  23. Michelle Stirling says:

    You are certainly correct the subject of social proof is very strong – but so is the power of individual action in the context of strong social proof. We recently released our 97% deconsensus report: We (Friends of Science) found the angles on social proof to be most enlightening on how and why the AGW climate cult has been. However, as Cialdini points out, when we find we have been tricked by faulty social proofs like the alleged 97%, we should get really upset and strongly protest. We see ourselves as providing information and tools for people to make rational decisions – it is difficult to avoid cultish dogma and our slogan borders on that – but it is also a form of ‘liberation therapy’ if you like. We did get an early comment back that one individual loved it because he was ‘tired of feeling guilty all the time’. The main objective is to broaden the discussion to be more inclusive of natural factors. We are mice against elephants – if any readers here would share, tweet, reblog our billboard – or please have some fun and photo-shop it into your community or neighbourhood…or landmark…and tweet it back to us or post on facebook. How would it look on the Eiffel tower to greet Madame Lagarde with her “Lagarde Culinary Climate Claim” that we’ll be roasted, toasted, fried and grilled…? Thank you all for your comments.Very helpful.

  24. oldbrew says:

    ‘the alleged 97%’

    97% is also the percentage of climate models which forecast 21st century warming that’s never yet happened, and shows no sign of happening. In other words: 97% nonsense.

  25. mkelly says:

    OT. Tallbloke I see on WUWT you are now back to a “Transendent Rant etc “. Have you been a bad boy?

  26. -=NikFromNYC=- says:

    Yet another “far out fringe” idea is reported in straightforward manner today, this one being on the origin of life, that naturally thermal cycling reactions created microscopic little natural PCR cycles to facilitate RNA replication exactly as modern PCR machines do:

  27. Captain Dave says:

    Makes me proud to be a Calgarian and an Engineer.

  28. Paul Vaughan says:

    The billboard statement is true:

    “The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.”

    Recently I shared a sun-climate update:

    (~2 years-worth of new data)

    New — a trivial extension:

    The sun governs Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC):

    Solar activity controls both the global base state and the gradients (and hence circulation).

    It should be illegal to relentlessly harass people for saying so.

    Somehow they get a pass from harassment laws because why? Because they are fighting “evil deniers”? Not acceptable. People should not be relentlessly harassed for stating the truth. The truth is:

    “The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2.”

    In order to argue against this, one has to assert (ignorantly &/or deceptively) that one or both of the laws of large numbers &/or conservation of angular momentum are violated. This can be rigorously proven in a manner analogous to the “side-angle-side” and “angle-side-angle” proofs many may recall from school days. I guarantee you that you can safely bet your family on it.

    Suggestion: Don’t tolerate harassment from functionally innumerate solar thought-police. Let them have their religion, but there is no sensible reason whatsoever to tolerate harassment from them, just as there is no sensible reason to tolerate harassment from any other religious fanatic.

  29. ren says:

    Tallbloke due to the location of the polar vortex increased ice cover around the America.

  30. ren says:

    To understand the cause you have to look at the effect.

  31. ren says:

    Another attack arctic air in the north-eastern America. Jetstream Forecast on March 24.,67.18,553

  32. Brian H says:

    Not only is CO2 not the main climate driver, it barely even registers.

  33. Sören F says:

    I don’t like it, it drags down the argument, as if “it’s us” is somehow unthinkable, since they got the size of the earth wrong.

    [mod added 22nd Mar: The earth is to scale with image evidence in a later comment here
    More on this is later comments, below. I think your comments are fair Sören. — Tim]

  34. Rob JM says:

    To put CO2 forcing (if it exists) into perspective consider the following fact.
    The earth experiences a change is solar forcing from 1300W/m2 to 0 W/m2 in six hours.
    The earth might have experienced a change in CO2 forcing of up to 2W/m2 in 100 years.
    That is 94 million times smaller!

  35. ren says:

    Water vapor and greenhouse gases this is it so that the Earth does not freeze. Solar Cycles determine the climate cycles.

  36. Michelle Stirling says:

    Paul Vaughan – Thanks for your info and supportive comments. We press on! The challenge of course is trying to explain complex science in a simple way that also counters the very simplistic and effective mantras of the AGW crowd. We see the message as a springboard to further discussion.

  37. Michelle Stirling says:

    Soren F – Had Earth been left exactly to size it would have been barely visible – so this being advertising and not a science paper, we had to choose. In the original photo the earth is also rather pink – but since the “Blue Dot” is the identifiable ‘earth-from-space’ image most people are familiar with, we also photoshopped that color. We do acknowledge that humans have a role in climate change – mostly we are concerned at the diversion of funds and interest AWAY from dealing with actual toxic pollution while turning CO2e into a commodity – therefore shutting down large emitters in China will never be desirable. They are a literal gold mine for carbon traders. Cleaning them up would kill the market… however, thanks for your comments and insights. They are noted for future efforts.

  38. tallbloke says:

    Michelle: Solar variation correlates better with temperature change than co2. So does cloud cover change. Mann used his dodgy hockeystick to great effect. We can show truthful and simple graphs to make our point too.

  39. Gail Combs says:

    AlecM says: @ March 19, 2014 at 8:07 am

    …. To illustrate the problem posed by the AAAS and the lefty willing dupes who run it, we must examine the central thesis in Climate Alchemy, the main diagram in Trenberth et al. 2009 ‘Energy Budget’….

    John Kehr has a pretty good article on that topic and blows Trenberth’s cartoon out of the water.

  40. Gail Combs says:

    ren says: @ March 20, 2014 at 6:54 am

    Another attack arctic air in the north-eastern America…..
    Here is another Jet Stream forecast.

    Calling for possible snow in Washington DC

    I hope they get really dumped on!

  41. speaking of billboards. Here is an example of how the AGW new media hype agenda is in Australia
    Appearing on the front page of the TELSTRA ..internet provider search engine.
    This site would be accessed by millions daily and is my first page/home when turning on computer

    Note some of the outrageous claims here.
    Have a holiday here before these destinations disappear..
    Getting the tourism industry to promote alarmist AGW?


    Check out 3 of the world’s must-see destinations before it’s too late.

    Dead Sea has shrunk by a third of its size in the last 40 years and is sinking at a rate of 13 inches per year.

    Sadly, the Maldives are effectively sinking, as sea levels continue to rise due to climate change. The stunning coral islands and reefs could become completely submerged, leaving this surfing and diving paradise to be nothing but a glimmer in history. Fly into Male Airport before you miss your chance to experience one of our planet’s most beautiful areas.

    Great Barrier Reef

    Tropical North Queensland’s very own wonder of the world is in danger of disappearing in the next few decades due to a rise in ocean temperatures and water acidity. This could leave the majority of the huge coral ecosystem bleached and lifeless.

  42. oldbrew says:

    @ weathercycles

    ‘before it’s too late’ — the old sales technique: ‘buy now, stocks going fast’ 🙂

    ‘water acidity’ — more sales hype, seawater is alkaline

    ‘Dead Sea has shrunk’ — true, but industrial water extraction is a big problem

  43. Sören F says:

    Michelle, sorry I was gone for a while. I meant nothing about whether man is behind or not or how much. But what’s on the billboard are mere assertions, so you look for reasoning. Further, that the size of earth is _actually_ not to scale never even crossed my mind. Now that you explain it is, it’s even more troubling, in that the board reads “to scale”.

    I’d suggest (in the popular area) to help produce documentaries instead, on the exciting more than 200 yrs of scientific inquiry, only not the monolithic (atmo-hydrosphere simulation-intense sciences only) “historic” account, rather a two-sided, real, non-settled one, including astronomy and Holocene geo-archives science.

  44. ren says:

    JETSTREAMS in the stratosphere | CRIKEY !#&@ …… IT’S THE WEATHER CYCLES says:
    This is the basis. Science must be real. Height 250 hPa is the beginning of the stratosphere, where the average temperature is almost constant (about -60 degrees C).

  45. Yes .’.ren’ I agree.. we should spend more time observing the stratosphere..
    As the sun enters a period of reduced activity l believe the jetstreams change mean latitude
    The experience in the NH winter lately has shown the sub tropical jet shift equatorward, allowing? the sub polar jet to meander. Also at the surface layer, strong low pressure cyclones at mid and high latitudes break through into the stratosphere causing both horizonatal and vertical propagating waves. Downwelling can occur in to the lower layers
    Polar vortex disruption and cold excursions to more northern latitudes

    This is not yet occurring in the SH?

    Are the changes to our climate a top _down progression ( stratosphere downward) or a surface layer phenomena as AGW suggests? or both /or?

    I would like to ask our global cooling scientists. Are we as cool as we should be with the solar downturn so far.?
    There are as many predictions for the rate of global cooling as their are for the IPCC range of warming scenarios
    If you were to plot ALL the predictions, from all sources.. The band of scenarios l expect would be humumgous .

  46. Michelle Stirling says:

    Soren F. Thanks for your reply – yes actually I think we may have slightly strayed from ‘to scale’ to somewhat not to scale in the various reproductions of this. My apologies. We are a small group working on several aspects at once and as one idea goes from one media to the next small changes may result in these kinds of unintentional misrepresentations. Thanks for pointing that out. Documentaries – excellent idea – again time and money. The angle is good. When you say you’d like to help in this regard – what do you mean? You can write me at : if you want a less public discussion. I have worked in film/television and it is one of my first loves; but difficult if you don’t have sufficient budget….or time. I like your angle. We do have our original “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled” which is on You Tube in about 5 parts.

  47. ren says:

    Forecast polar vortex on April 1. 17 km

  48. Michelle Stirling says:

    Soren F – my apologies – I was wrong again. I checked with the person who did the artwork and the only adjustment they made was to the color – blue rather than pink (to help people recognize our ‘blue dot earth’ and differentiate). It is apparently a direct screen capture from the NASA ftg. So, earth is to scale.

  49. tchannon says:

    Posters are a difficult art form, notices, advertisements in some way or another, whether for announcing a Parish Council meeting or self toasting sliced bread, “the crunch inside”.

    Colour has to be printable or emittable, lighting conditions taken into account. So it can be taken in at a glance from a distance. Photos they ain’t.

    I suppose it is much the same as essence-of-cartoon, that knack of spotting the character.

  50. Ken Gregory says:

    There was an unfortunate comment (March 20, 2014 at 9:37 am) that “they got the size of the earth wrong.”

    The solar flare image with the earth to scale was captured from a NASA video. The scale of the earth was determined by NASA, not us. The image below compares an image captured by me from the NASA video to the billboard image. (The billboard image of the flare is from a slightly different time in the video from what I captured, but very close.) The size the the earth is unaltered. The position and color of the earth was altered.

  51. tchannon says:

    Ken, I’ve added a moderator comment on the first earh-is-not-to-scale with a link to your comment. I hope that is not too overbearing on the commenter, not intended.

    Sören’s general take is I think fair comment, a lot can be said about what is right and wrong. We are dealing with a balancing act. Sensible criticism is both rare and valuable.

    My take home is that perhaps the poster authors are trying too hard instead of confident enough to let the poster speak, leave more with the wisdom of the viewer. On the other hand perhaps the intended audience does need spoon feeding: communicating with an intended audience.

    And another thing. Don’t do this, add more. ‘Earth to scale’, perhaps leave it at ‘Earth’

  52. Brett Keane says:

    A few questions for those who know more than I:

    Ren…..Leif points out a lack of SSW events seen in the Southern Hemisphere. Has there been an increase, and what might this show to be happening?

    Stephen W. – Would a molecule reaching emission heights at LTE emit at that gas T, or at its more energetic molecular level? Brett Keane, NZ

  53. tchannon says:

    Off topic says a moderator posting…

    Never seen the Met Office do this before

    24 hours ending 2100 on 22 Mar 2014:
    UKHighest max 0900-2100 -99 °C -99
    Lowest max 0900-2100 -99 °C -99
    Lowest min 2100-0900 -5.0 °C Aboyne
    Highest rainfall 2100-2100 19.0 mm Cluanie Inn
    Sunniest 2100-2100 8.7 hours Filton
    Last updated: 2302 on Sat 22 Mar 2014

    Why no min or max? I wonder what has gone wrong? Unless maybe too many stations tie and they are waiting for confirmation of manual station reports.

  54. ren says:

    Brett Keane
    The action takes place in the stratosphere. I call it the polar vortex blockade to distinguish them from SSW. Let’s see:

    You can continue to monitor the situation.
    Indeed, there has been a jump of cosmic radiation. Thank you for your interest.

  55. ren says:

    Ren…..Leif points out a lack of SSW events seen in the Southern Hemisphere.
    Longer appears SSW at 500 hPa. So you someone is lying?

  56. Sören F says:

    Michele, great, so no problem with actually being to scale, and yes, this documentary is what sprang to my mind and is a long-gone conclusion – thanks for the contact info.

  57. oldbrew says:

    @ TC

    There’s a Met Office contact link on this web page under ‘Commercial and media enquiries’.
    I used it a few weeks ago and got a reply within 24 hours from one of their senior staff.

    Also the graph on that page has a mystery green bar on the end of it, not seen that before.

  58. Chaeremon says: someone (or something) took your web server down 😦

  59. Michelle Stirling says:

    Soren F – Thank you for making me check on it. too. We’ll see what we can do on on the video idea.
    On a lighter note, I have a few spoofs done with a friend on You Tube called “Climate Cult Confessions #1, 2, 3” for fun. addressing issues of the Personal Carbon Sequestration Method (holding breath) or Backyard Carbon Sequestration method (pipe in ground breathe out into…), granny riding a bike… 🙂

  60. Brett Keane says:

    @ren: sorry Ren (and Leif), when I said ‘lack of’ SH SSWs, I meant very few recorded, and those only from about 2002. I take it that lowered solar flux could be a cause? And there has been less observation in the south than the north? Thank you for the data, I’ve opened a folder for this theme. Brett Keane NZ

  61. Elizabeth says:

    I just happened to see this billboard as I was driving home from the airport…I feel like I may be missing something so please correct me if I’m wrong. When I saw the billboard I was quite frankly appalled as it seems that it’s goal is to take blame off people for global warming and climate change. Therefore implying that our current lifestyles are justifiable? That it is ok for people to constantly consume without thinking, depleting the earths resources and contribute enormously to pollution? How is that a good message to be sending?

  62. Chaeremon says:

    @Elizabeth: nothing wrong with protection of environment and wise use of resources, but why do you speak for other people whom do not know you (like me), isn’t democracy and constitutional law needed for a change to “… take blame off people …” ?

    Do you run for parliament? Besides of that, please refrain from speaking for me; TIA.

  63. Michelle Stirling says:

    Elizabeth – Thanks for your note. The goal is to help people understand that there is an enormous natural factor that is the main driver of climate change; to encourage them to go to our website and see how many factors interplay with solar cycles. Climate science is very complex; the ‘warmist’ side have reduced it to a simple equation of ‘carbon dioxide from man-made emissions causes global warming.’ We too have had to find a simple way to express our alternative view. People are not responsible for climate change in general – they are responsible for human-made pollution (which, oddly, is not being addressed very well by the CO2/carbon tax equation!).
    Most of our current lifestyles are justifiable in that you could not even be driving from the airport unless you found it more convenient, efficient, comfortable to be in your car. Perhaps you had just gotten off a plane, or delivered someone there to fly far away….we are not appalled at this behavior of yours. But you are appalled at our sign?
    We could not be communicating with each other now unless we felt that computers and all associated technology provided a valuable service – all of it only exists due to modern use of fossil fuels. Pollution and climate change may overlap but they are different issues in terms of how they should be addressed. So far, carbon dioxide has not proven itself to be the main driver of climate change. People should not submit to poverty-inducing public policies for a ‘low-carbon’ society when it is based on faulty science and groupthink. We offer the public an alternative view and a great deal of free and comprehensive information on the many aspects of climate change; the sun’s influence is a springboard to deeper understanding.

  64. oldbrew says:

    Have a spin of big Al’s climate change wheel of fortune – anyone can play…

  65. Paul Vaughan says:

    Michelle, one last thought since I dropped by to find the link to share with an acquaintance who’s going to the Calgary airport today:

    Sun-Climate Multidecadal (MD) Wave
    = Marcia Wyatt’s “Stadium” Wave

    I give more detail here:

    It’s pretty simple:
    The sun governs terrestrial climate.

    Best Regards

  66. Michelle Stirling says:

    Thanks so much Paul. I believe the billboard came down yesterday (end of contract) but we will have other treats in the near future. Of course for those in Calgary and area, the Ross McKitrick luncheon is coming up May 13, 2014 – tickets on line at Friends of Science. We typically videotape presentations and then present them online afterward for those who cannot attend. Cheers!

  67. Paul Vaughan says:

    Michelle, here’s an encore in memory of the historic billboard:

    Sun-Climate Multidecadal SLP (sea level pressure) “stadium wave”:

    In Solidarity

  68. […] that social media has picked up the billboard; it was featured on Europe’s 2014 Best Weblog “Tallbloke Talkshop” back in March 2014 to positive responses, under the title “Friends of Science billboard seems […]