AGW “believers” are such nice people. Slanderers first and foremost with a dash of recidivism as back-up. One by one their arguments are failing. Even the extrapolated ones such as “there are too many people” and “peak energy”. It is little wonder they are turning nasty in the face of massive gas/oil finds, human ingenuity in the field of GM crops and the increasingly large deviations of projected CO2 based doom from nature’s icy reality.

Arguing science with them is utterly pointless. Pearls before swine is the old expression. Been there, done that. All that is left is my scorn and ridicule for them. Not one of their “projections, ifs, buts and maybes, 95% confidence levels and strong beliefs” has come to pass. Not one. Yet their faith is upheld by… well, faith alone it would seem.

Far easier to attack the person and ignore their message. Far easier to “believe” the MOD funded Hadley/CRU unit and the Pentagon (NASA/Giss) and other arms of government such as the Royal Society and all those other “establishments” populated by formerly respected scientists than to wonder why they say what they say and who foots their bills. Far easier to believe the fairy-tale of “a global temperature” than to look at the world empirically. Far easier to concentrate on the WAIS than the continent as a whole, or the Arctic as opposed to total global sea-ice. Simplicity itself to ignore the natives of somewhere such as the Maldives and concentrate on *their* politicians’ differing story. Far easier to claim that the “chum club” of peer review is mightier than the lone patent clerk.

Trundling into a bleak future the rickety gravy train is doubtless shaking itself apart but we will all be harmed by the madness of crowds before this episode is over. All of us. Those who saw through this entirely political ruse immediately, those who came to see through it by observing the world and those who pushed the agenda and those who puffed it into existence by instigating it, promulgating it or by wishing to fall into the guilt-trip trap for whatever reason.

Praising the executioners as you are forced into the slaughterhouse is a symptom of how far the game has progressed and the lengths that those who have bought into the dream will go to prevent dissonance from disturbing their religious dream world.

Real Climate and Climate Progress, to name but two viperous collectives with the affront to name their funded houses as if they alone know what is going on, are not the type of place for free discussion of climate related hypothesis. Echo chambers only. Sandalistas screeching to the choir. No-one has the facts. The IPCC themselves warn against attempting to model a chaotic system before going on to base this entire sham on a collection of them.

That didn’t stop the idiots who were given a greater than 50% chance of living through their own birth as direct a result of far higher intellects than theirs’ utilizing fossil fuel based technologies for the greater good of their “fellow” men. Men that they now denounce, prancing around on the mother of all parliaments’ rooftop and screaming like the children they appear to be that we should not allow their yet-to-be-born offspring and all those current and future children of the 2nd and 3rd world the same benefits.

We are heading for a cold, maybe very cold, couple of decades. That there may soon not be enough electricity to keep us in the comfort to which we have begun to become accustomed, no matter our ability or desire to purchase same, is entirely down to the short-sightedness of those who never got anything “right”. Stop using (entirely sustainable) paper bags at the supermarket they shrieked and now they shout that there is a continent sized mass of plastic swirling around in the centre of the Pacific and in the trees. They were as incapable then as they are now of joined up thinking. None need worry about unintended consequences if one’s intentions are good. Duh.

That I should have lived so long to see it, with all my teeth and my intellect intact, is also purely due to fossil fuel usage. At least there is a glimmer of hope in the publication of Paul Hudson’s post on the Ministry of Truth’s own website.

There is only one question. In having no answer to it and taking up the entirety of the debate on alternative technologies it is obvious that CO2 was chosen precisely because of its ability to compound the weather/climate forecasting problem to the point where real industrial pollution, over fishing, de-forestation and the other disgusting shit that should be on the agenda, not to mention the third world living in their own sewage and unable to find clean drinking water are points that are now, mostly because of supposed environmentalists, completely off the table because politicians can see much cash and power in their future by making out that CO2 is a pollutant.

That question that no-one answers?

Is there, or has there ever been, empirical, repeatable evidence that past, current or future levels of CO2 in atmosphere have, can or will lead to an increase in global temperature?

Computer models are not proof. (The IPCC state that the climate cannot be modelled because it is a chaotic, non-linear system) Proof of warming is not proof that CO2 did it. (Proof of warming is where all the academies, scientists and media are concentrating their efforts – why is that?)

CO2, apart from lagging, rather then leading, global temperatures by up to 800 years, is vital for every living thing, at historically low levels, slowly rising out of dangerously low levels for plant life (which is why the 0.28% extra, the portion we humans “create”, of total CO2 is gulped down by plants and plankton to the point where the Earth has greened 15% extra since NASA have been studying it) and, at 0.038% of atmosphere currently, even if it tripled it would be nowhere near a problem (in the greenhouse sense) and would need to be x10 before it reached the level in your front room when occupied for more than an hour by 4 adults in deep conversation. Imagine a world where all that went into reverse.

Even if we burn everything there is to burn, including all fossil fuels, plants and animals above ground as well the 19x(estimated) as much biomass underground, we will only be able to get the level to about 0.1% of atmosphere which would be up to 11x less than the permitted amounts on nuclear attack submarines, where you would guess that alertness and health are of prime interest. The oxygen level in atmosphere would, maybe, drop from 20.9% to 20.8% by so doing. This would take us into the year 2200(approximately) when coal, at current estimates of the easily extracted stuff, runs out. If we haven’t risen above burning stuff to get around by then we deserve everything we get.

The majority of those arguing for the bad science rely on attacking the man because no-one, on either side, can show definitively, as yet, CO2s role in climate/weather, benign or not. The “deniers” (such a nice word, foisted on sceptics by the religious fundamentalists who “believe” humans are all bad and whose guilt we must all pay for by the way) mostly, just want the subject cleared up so that the vast, ongoing funding (seems strange when the “science” is soooo “settled”) can be diverted into real, and really fixable, problems such as clean water provision for everyone of our brothers.

Cap and trade/ carbon trading will turn over more dollars in a decade than ALL the oil companies have turned over in the entire history of oil companies. At least the oil companies have to give you some tangible product for your hard earned, not just feed more paper into a printer.

CO2 looks more like the perfect target as time goes by. Shame the global temperature has plateaued over the last decade while CO2 continues a steady one millionth, or so, part per year increase.

Science will be in very bad shape soon. Some of our esteemed scholars may well get chased down in the street and lynched when it becomes apparent to the “common” man that the “reason” their relatives are starving, their pockets are empty and that human progress has halted was based on lies that were known to be so from the outset, yet were perpetuated because scientists would not stand and be counted even though they knew they were defrauding their nations, indeed all of humanity, when they applied for, and accepted funding.

Dressing up environmentalism in a mortar board and cape does not make it a superhero. It is a depressing(in all the senses of that word) misguided, if not spiteful, movement that disregards mankind’s ability to progress and, when the time is right clean up after itself, using whatever comes to hand.

We ignorant paranoiacs will have the last laugh – please forgive some of us for giggling in anticipation. At least we aren’t drooling and gibbering over imaginary bogeymen (CO2) and all too horribly real poison dwarves -Algorythm Al and His Hanson-ness – and their lapdogs.

This is what bothers me about you guys. You claim scientific credentials yet are religious in your unswerving faith that CO2 is bad m’kay. Your superior diagnostic skills should have you on our side of the fence at the first mention of anything that smells like the fish that we are wafted with daily.

Don’t get angry, or derogatory, just because nature is disproving your pet theory on climate – use your science to create a new pet. That is what it is for. Huddling together like witch doctors and agreeing with despots does nothing to advance science. The exact opposite in fact. You will be found out. Someone brave right now could make a name for themselves. Not saying you could make a hundred million dollars like some people but……

Your duty, as scientists, is to question theory until it either breaks down and confesses that it has been evasive or it produces repeatable, verifiable, even elegant, proof of its utility. Having failed to prove CO2 is driving temperatures you should move on and attempt to discover what is.

(dog-something anyway)