WHEN Nicholas Stern released his influential British government report on the economics of climate change in October 2006, it said that the east coast of Australia had suffered declining rainfall. In the same year, the Howard government pledged an additional $500 million to stop the trend of rising salinity in the Murray River.

Three claims have been repeated so often they are accepted as fact: global temperatures are rising, we have less rainfall and so water is becoming scarce, and salinity in the Murray River is rising.

Of course there is the old adage: lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. But we can keep it simple and just consider data from observations of the real world and from the most reputable institution since records began for the particular issue in which we are interested. It is important to not confuse real-world data (also known as observational data) with output from computer models because computer models generate scenarios that may or may not come true.

Observational data on rainfall for the entire east coast of Australia is available from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology with yearly averages for all the sites back to 1900.

Mr. Reid is trying to negotiate a compromise solution with the "Gang of Ten," a bipartisan group of senators who want to attach highly limited offshore drilling to a grab-bag of funding for alternative energy sources.

But Mr. Reid is also frustrated by the roadblocks environmental groups are putting up against so-called clean energy. No permits for solar energy projects on federal land have been issued since 2005, partly because of opposition from environmentalists. The Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity have sued to block various "clean" energy projects on the grounds they might kill birds (windmills), erode animal habitat (solar power) or block scenic views (geothermal transmission lines).

David Suzuki, Al Gore

But the degree of certainty promoted by the IPCC and adherents to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory has effectively cancelled doubt.

As a result things are being said and actions taken even by supposedly wise men that only underline the dangers inherent in lack of understanding. Often these actions contradict the arguments on which they are based. 

Irony heaps on irony in the climate debate as we are led down the path of certainty about the problem and the cause. We now have people who blame humans for causing global warming and climate change taking deliberate action to cause cooling and counteract climate change. So, the solution to human interference is more human interference. Sadly, this assumes that you know what you’re doing that the problem is correctly identified and you’re prepared to accept the responsibility and deal with the outcome of your actions.

Found this little nugget on the Ecorazzi website: "The clip is a public service announcement from the former Vice-President warning us of the dangers of pollution and inviting people to check out his new movie." You have to hand it to the writers of the now-defunct TV series, Futurama, for nailing his annoying proselytizing down to the last verb. FYI, Gore did his own voice work.

The conventional analysis of the McCain “I’ll have to get back to you on how many homes I own” story is that the issue matters because no candidate wants to appear out of touch. The Obama campaign was quick to pounce — painting McCain as fat-cat elitist.

But the McHome flap reveals something else: green true-believer McCain has a serious, Al Gore-sized hypocrisy problem.

As a senator who has embraced cap-and-trade, federal fuel mileage laws, and is fluent in green-speak (“Greenland is the most outstanding example of what’s been happening [due to global warming],” he told The Detroit News in a Dec. 2007 interview), McCain would demand huge sacrifices of the American economy even as he lives like a king.