The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued  quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.

Absolutely hilarious. Good one, Jim. Thanks for a Sunday morning laugh.

Here's some legitimate information from a legitimate organization called NOAA (you may have heard of it?), based on peer-reviewed studies, which are linked to.

An excerpt for your viewing pleasure:

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

*Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

*The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

Human activity has now become the main cause of recent climate change. The strong global warming observed since the mid-20th century has been largely attributed to human influences on the climate. Global warming refers to the observed long-term rise in global average surface temperature and is one manifestation of climate change. The rate of global warming over the last half of the 20th century was about twice that for the whole century. This human influence results primarily from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Burning these fuels generates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Land use changes, such as deforestation and conversion of land to agriculture, have also contributed carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

More.

Climate change is considered one of the most important environmental issues of our time. This concern reflects the reality that so much of human activity is sensitive to climate change, and that adapting to current and projected rates of climate change could be very challenging. It also reflects the understanding that human perturbation of the climate system is essentially irreversible, for many centuries at least. How much climate change future generations are exposed to will be determined by the actions that we take over the coming decades to reduce human impacts on the climate system. ...

Although climate change can be caused by both natural processes and human activities, the recent warming has been largely attributed to human activity, primarily the release of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. These gases enhance the insulating properties of the atmosphere, reducing heat loss, thereby warming the planet. Continued emission of these gases is the primary cause for concern about climate change now and into the immediate future.

I presume you're asking about Canada because they withdrew from Kyoto and (in your mind) that means they reject climate change.  Of course, they withdrew from Kyoto for a number of reasons (mainly potential financial penalties for their failure to meet agreed benchmarks), but not because they deny climate change.  Even Harper's conservative government is spending large amounts of money to combat the effects of climate change while they pursue the Durban agreement in lieu of Kyoto.  Moreover, Canadians themselves aren't dumb, either.  86% of Canadians acknowledge that climate change is caused by either human sources or a combination of human and natural source.  Only 9% believe it is due to natural cause, while 2% think it isn't even happening.

As to this idea of armed resistance against the federal government, the Second Amendment did talk about militias.  But modern technology has made the Second Amendment obsolete in terms of resisiting the federal government.  In 1789, muskets could constitute effective resistance against King George or even our then new government here.  Not so anymore--one needs drones, helicopters and RPGs, weapons even the NRA does not suggest are protected by the Second Amendment.