Under The Weather

Anais Nin :-
When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow.

AGW deniers don’t get funding even if they seek it. Simple as that. It amazes me that there is any work being done in that particular vacuum. This produces several outcomes. The obvious being that realists (read deniers) are poor and therefore poorly represented in the media and academia. Their patience would appear to be inversely proportional to the increasingly shrill bleating from the alarmist warmers camp as their proof dissolves and the Sun comes around to save us from unwarranted draconian intervention into our lives. Al Bore has not been given .3 of a billion dollars for advertising so as to preach to the choir.

The intelligence and penetration so obvious in most of the spiel from those who claim to “believe” the “settled science” shows me something interesting.

They do not care about the science, the environment or humanity. Quite the opposite. The eloquence displayed by the most tenacious warmers resembles the utterances of lawyers. Yet that same probing urge should naturally lead to questioning the story, its supposed proofs and it’s perpetrators, but no. Their energy is focussed into debunking, slandering, belittling or attacking those who feel their antennae prickle whenever lies fill the air. The elitists are the most vociferous. If we are so wrong why not ignore us? Eventually we will tire of the laughter and mockery and just wilt into the background. This smacks of a hidden agenda if you ask me. Follow the money.

Currently the only places where a dissenter can store or publish their work is either unfunded or “oil (or coal) funded” or “out of their field” or “previously proven to be liars” or “on a glossy website” or yadda yadda. The denialist camp have few supporters willing to throw their careers away or subject themselves to the abundant and constant vilification and spite of their opponents when patience will serve just as well. Most of us know it will get colder soon. It is the agenda driven side of climate debate that has the money, time and arrogance (in the face of nature’s previous and proven cyclicity) necessary for recognition by, and funds from, Universities and scientific bodies. Even if frivolous or proving to be subsequently bunk anyone mentioning the correct terminology when seeking MMGW money generally gets it.

For example, John Nicol’s paper on CO2:
icecap.us/images/uploads/ClimateChange_Nicol.pdf

Useful science which presents proof that above a stated (very low) level CO2 has little influence on the “greenhouse effect”. Opened up by the author for any criticism or suggested revision, including review by peers, this paper remains mostly unread, yet heatedly vilified by warmers purely by dint of it’s location. Its crime is to be published on icecap.us “already proven to be the repository of (insert slanderous accusation here)” – it must be bunkum.
Could he get something like that stored, cited or published by NASA? Or Nature? Or Science? Yet these same people will readily point dissenters to real climate dot org – a group of funded ideologues who secretly wish humanity, along with the Maunder, Sporer, Wolf and Dalton minima, would just blow away. The ones with children and mortgages are nearly forgiven, as they have mouths to feed and the teat of government is full to bursting for anyone willing to prostitute their degrees in the name of “bad monkey deserves slapping”. Not the milk of human kindness but that which issues from a sacred cow.

Do the hot heads feel some sort of moral obligation to educate the cool heads? They could just leave us realists to fend for ourselves. We have zero funding. We get zero media coverage. Why do we appear to be such a threat? Our output is minuscule in comparison to that of the machine they worship. The Spanish Inquisition had a greater excuse for a similarly fragile supposition.

Just because you have bought into the nightmare doesn’t mean that anyone who has not done so is wrong. Especially when the dream is propped up only by “computer models with 90% certainty”. It may mean that we do not wish to succumb to the darkness until presented with concrete evidence. We may merely intend to suspend our final judgment until a single proof emerges. One proof would do me (not coincidences or smoothed projections or best guesses or forecasts please. Just one concrete, measurable, repeatable, incontrovertible fact).
Even then the best course to steer may be to do nothing other than adapt to our changing biosphere. If indeed the world were to continue warming we should not be taxed into a new stone age as an excuse for a cure.

Normal Warming Will Be Resumed As Soon As Technically Possible.