What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Carl Sagan:- “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

A troll dropped his shit on a thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com and crept off. This is that:


Dr James Lawrence Powell – “Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility – In One Pie Chart”

I take a couple of issues with it. Not least of which is the claim that almost 40,000 papers were read, to some extent, by this guy, albeit with some help from usual suspects, SS crackwhores Crook and Vermicelli – even if they ‘only’ read the titles and abstracts that is a lot of time invested.

This ‘scientist’ asks others to provide evidence that his and his cohort’s guesswork is erroneous. [FAIL]. Err, that’s your job. If your guesswork was falsifiable – BTW we know it is NOT falsifiable, therefore it is not graced with the epithet of ‘hypothesis’ – the FACT that no-one has done so yet is not a problem for sceptics. It is your, and your congregation’s problem. Why should this have to be continuously pointed out to you guys? You are educated?

So. At one end of this particular straw-man turkey sub Dr James Lawrence Powell claims to have read “…whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that “reject” human-caused global warming …”, Nearly 40,000 articles. and at the bottom of his ‘Hot Brown Sandwich’ we find “…We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree …” [FAIL]

That is a lot of effort spent to jump to a wrong conclusion. If I had put this much work into a project I would probably notice that I was investigating the wrong premise. After 10 years of wading in this mire I have only observed two, maybe three eccentrics who claim that there was no warming in the last quarter of the 20th Century – the rest of us seem to reject the human causation will cause a catastrophe up the road aspect to varying degree[pun intended].

He bases this conclusion on zero evidence. That elusive ‘magic bullet’ that he so wishes existed in his closed circuit of projection: “… had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies proves human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science.” Fixed That For Ya Dr Powell

I read some of his stuff at http://www.jamespowell.org/Blog/Blog.php Whatever combination of titles, abstracts, and entire articles was necessary to identify articles that show his joy of life in the echo chambers of “… ClimateProgress.org, RealClimate.org, and SkepticalScience.com …” because I cannot comment at desmogblog where the ‘article’ is posted and his homepage does not allow commentary. Quelle sur-fucking-prise.

Also, on Thu, Dec 8 2011 he wrote “… Why is sea level rising faster than any time in history? …” [FAIL] He is a geologist. Not a very good one it would appear. The guy is a paid advocate out of the Gore mould. I wont be wasting any more time on him. 3 strikes. Get out.

… and the strawman? The entire premise of the article is that proof of warming is proof that bad monkeys did it by setting fire to things. No wonder he ‘works’ with the SS (Cook and Nuccitelli) and worships the investigative skillz of Oreskes. He is a turd eater. He is merely regurgitating prior work:


This joker is barking up the wrong red herring.

Climate Wars. Fakery, Misdirection and Obfuscation

News Release – Please report and pass on – Thank You
Initial response to BBC2 ‘Climate Wars’ 14th Sept 2008
from Piers Corbyn, astrophysicist of WeatherAction long range forecasters.
+44(0)7958713320 / +44(0)2079399946 , piers@weatheraction.com

1. This ‘Climate wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort
from the BBC’s ‘green religion
department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2 driven Global
Warming and Climate Change.
The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to
be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no
answers to the mounting  evidence which refutes the crumbling Global
Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains
=> They selectively report part of ‘weak’ sceptics contributions which
are muddled and AVOID proper interviews with scientists who can
soundly refute every wriggle of the Global Warmers mantra.
=> They  misrepresents the observed facts and choose ‘straw-man’
methods to attack inadequate non-CO2 part-theory as if somehow trying
to argue that if an animal is not a cat then it must be a dog.
=> They resort to the green zealots blogging method of personal
innuendo rather than discussing  the issues – ‘Smear or belittle the
messenger if you don’t like the message’

2. The Hockey stick temperature graph (claiming ‘exceptional’ world
temperatures now compared with the last few thousand years) is a fraud
and ‘improvements’ on it promoted by the IPCC and members of the
Climate Crisis industry are also fraud  – with lipstick.
For the facts see Climate Audit and Christopher Monkton:
For the record I concur fully with Christopher Monckton’s piece here
referenced including his conclusions.

3. Whatever may have seemed plausible 10 years ago Global Warming is
over and there is no evidence that CO2 ever was, is or will be a
driver of world temperatures or Climate Change – indeed the evidence
is the relationship is more the other way around:-
a) Temperatures drive CO2 levels in a number of circumstances (eg when
the world exits ice-ages). CO2 has no observed net driving effect on
temperatures. This fact is established from thousands of years of data
which the ‘Global Warmers’ refuse to properly consider.
b) World temperatures have been generally declining for about 10 years
while CO2 is rising rapidly.
c) Furthermore the period from the end of the last ice age 10,000
years ago  to about 1,000 years ago was warmer than present (indeed
Greenland is so named because it was warmer in Viking times), had LESS
ice in the Arctic and there was notably  LESS CO2 than now.
The UN Climate Committee – the IPCC – is deliberately ignoring or
covering-up these facts which show in official data.
However rather than investigating the accountability of the UN and our
elected representatives the BBC seems to want independent scientists
and the public to be accountable to the UN and governments. See links
below for information and the letter to Ban-Ki moon UN Secretary
General and Tim Yeo MP from 13 world scientists and environmentalists

4. Attempts to prove CO2 effect ‘right’ by challenging an incomplete
version of one solar theory are doubly dishonest because:
a) One theory being inadequate does not prove CO2 has any effect. The
CO2 theory already lies in tatters – refuted by data evidence. No
amount of enraged shooting at others can revive it.
b) The attacks on what the Global Warmers deem as ‘solar theory’ are
the product of disgraceful dishonesty which marks the integrity of the
scientific establishment at its lowest level since the Papal
The main periodical solar activity effect – the largest observed
periodicity present in world temperature data – is the 22 yr cycle
(driven by sun-earth magnetic connectivity). Hence for aboiut half the
time the 11 year cycle of solar activity – of particles, sunspots and
radiation – will move with temperature and half the time move against
it. This is well known to solar and climate scientists. All the
pseudo-scientists have done is essentially choose time spans where the
two move in opposite directions and ignore demonstrated correlations
on longer time spans. Those who do this are either unbelievably
ignorant of their own subject or deliberately deceptive.  BBC web
‘information’ on the matter refuses to publish the truth despite
requests and in this programme avoids interviewing scientists in
Britain or overseas who research in and understand and apply sun-earth
magnetic and particle effects in provably skilled weather and climate
forecasting***. CO2 based climate and seasonal weather forecasts on
the other hand show no skill, have been abysmally incorrect for a
decade and have got worse in the last few years.

5. I challenge – and there are other scientists who can also
challenge –  the ‘Climate Wars’ programme producer to public televised
debate with himself or any scientist they want to put forward.
If they had answers to the many refutations of their theory then the
UN Secretary General or its Climate Committee (the IPCC) or the UK
Parliament Environment Audit committee (chair Tim Yeo MP*) would
respond to letters but they have all failed to answer simple requests
for evidence to support their theory and policies under which they
expect the world to be taxed and go further into food price crisis and
recession. The letter of 14th July from 13 scientists and
environmentalists across the world to Ban-Ki moon  Secretary general
of the UN – http://www.lowefo.com/pdf/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf
– has still not been even acknowledged.

Integrity in science, politics and the BBC would be a good idea.

Piers Corbyn
Astrophysicist WeatherAction long range forecasters

Meet The Gorons.

Dorothy Thompson :-

“There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings.”

There are five basic questions that warming alarmists must answer on the path to true enlightenment grasshopper.
And here they are:

1) There are two known climate possibilities. The balance that sustains us with, like it or lump it, very little variation in the face of our disgorging CO2 into it, and the White Earth Equilibrium. Mathematically as likely as the one we inhabit yet, under its cold regime the seas are frozen and ice covers the continents. Why does ours prevail? Why has it done so since before the first ice age?

2) Do you dispute the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit data indicating no significant lower latitude high tropospheric warming? In the entirety of its existence? The very equipment that was provisioned to end any GW ambiguity?

3) Can you provide evidence of AGW? Can you show that the very small, and extremely benign, warming we have “suffered” in the last 100 years is a direct result of man’s activities? Or of his CO2 output? Without relying on software models. Using the scientific method? Can you point to someone who has?

4) Do you dispute the findings of the Argo (Buoy) data collection and location system?
Dr Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings has stated and “there has been a very slight cooling,” but insisted the temperature drop was “not anything really significant.” Can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relinquishing the chance to crow over a “very slight” warming?

5) Do you dispute that atmospheric CO2 level is driven by, or follows if you will, temperature?
“The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years.”

The satisfactory explanation of these five inquiries will lead you to that much vaunted destination that Al Gore and his ilk claim to already inhabit – The Truth Pertaining to Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science, and especially theoretical hypothesis, would appear to be a journey just like most things in this tenuous limb of existence yet some assert they have completed it. They assume also that we must now bow down to their wisdom and take our medicine in the form of a repellent tax on the very stuff of life and the continued or accelerated suppression of those in the third world.

Excuse me, I have a complaint.

Gloria Steinem :-
“The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.”

Some down to Earth views on the validity of CO2 as a “bad thing” and whether we could, or indeed should do anything at all to mitigate our < 10% contribution to the annual carbon cycle.

John R. Christy:
“Atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase due to the undisputed benefits that carbon-based energy brings to humanity. This increase will have some climate impact through CO2’s radiation properties. However, fundamental knowledge is meagre here, and our own research indicates that alarming changes in the key observations are not occurring.”
“I would think a simple way to let the world know there are other opinions about various aspects emerging from the IPCC font would be to provide some quasi-official forum to allow those views to be expressed.”

Richard S Lindzen:
“CO2 for different people has different attractions. After all, what is it? – it’s not a pollutant, it’s a product of every living creature’s breathing, it’s the product of all plant respiration, it is essential for plant life and photosynthesis, it’s a product of all industrial burning, it’s a product of driving – I mean, if you ever wanted a leverage point to control everything from exhalation to driving, this would be a dream. So it has a kind of fundamental attractiveness to bureaucratic mentality.”
“Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.”

Fred Singer:
“Anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin”
“The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming.”
“The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.”

Roy Spencer:
“Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like ‘pollutant’.”
“Daily noise in the Earth’s cloud cover amount can cause feedback estimates from observational data to be biased in the positive direction, making the climate system look more sensitive to manmade greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.”
“All of this assumes that mankind is the primary cause of global warming anyway. You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.”
“A small change in cloud cover hypothesized to occur with the El Nino/La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation modes of natural climate variability can explain most of the major features of global average temperature change in the last century, including 70% of the warming trend.”

Who are these people?

John R. Christy Ph.D. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S., Atmospheric Sciences, B.A., Mathematics, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the IPCC.

Richard S Lindzen, Ph.D. Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published over 200 books and scientific papers, lead author of Chapter 7 of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC.

S. Fred Singer, B.E.E. Electrical Engineering, A.M. Ph.D. Physics; Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville, American Meteorological Society’s Special Award, NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Now. Presenting those who contort and writhe and obfuscate and smear (ad hominem ad infinitum) in the hope of trashing the claims, careers, credibility or character of the above, luminous, climate scientists:

James Hansen, B.A. Physics and Mathematics, M.S. Astronomy, Ph.D. Physics
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences
Michael Oppenheimer, S.B. Chemistry, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics

What’s this! The scientists crying shrilly that AGW is real and we must pay to stop it do not have degrees in climatology? Or even climate related sciences? Surely not?

As for the funded demagogues who push the lie that CO2 is a “pollutant” and “the end of the world” and that anyone who supports a contrary view deserves all they get (and do these guys know how to hand it out)…..

Meet the Gorons…

Real Climate dot org:

James Hansen “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead”

Set up and funded by: Environmental Media Services. EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore’s 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s.

De Smog Blog:
James Hoggan: PR Lawyer. “The blog exists to identify unethical PR tactics and to expose the PR people who are trying to confuse the public about climate change.”
Ross Gelbspan: Wrote two books. One of them, Boiling Point, was the subject of the lead review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. That review was written by former Vice President Al Gore.

Maurice Strong:
Entrepreneur who uses business success for leverage in politics, and vice versa.
“Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.” Counts Al Gore as “a good friend”.

Anonymous coward. Must be funded from somewhere as he spends all day torturing data and posting wherever he can. Loves Al’s stuff. Wants his babies.

These be the bones of the current malpractice – the kicking of the authoritative by the pejorative.

Under The Weather.

Albert Einstein :-
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

We enter a new dark age. The age of reason is behind us. We are cattle but we have no food. We are the playthings of a ruthless elite that consider us a noisy, possibly rebellious nuisance that need trimming, very soon.
Al Gore has $300,000,000 at his disposal to “persuade” those of us recalcitrant enough to question the A in AGW that we are wrong on the “settled science”. We are worth every penny as is evinced by the removal of the Haitian PM in the very recent history. If we were about to get angry because we are about to get hungry then its edjamacation time for us me laddie.

I have had a good look around these past few days and, in between baiting some alarmist warmers stroke scientists, I have seen some unsettling things. In amongst the loss of woodland birds in Britain and a similar decline in the bee populations in the USA there are increasingly frequent stirrings in the “news”papers and on TV. The journos and hacks are beginning to think (rightfully) that if lynch mobs are forming because bellies are empty then they may be some of the focus of the fury that is erupting worldwide. Famine is coming. So is cold as cycle 24 is late and we all know what cold brings with it. Pestilence, Exodus and War follow famine as surely as day follows night. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

The insane idea that food can be easily turned into fuel without damaging the fragility of world food markets, stripping us of a varied biosphere and polluting it far more than continuing to rely on oil and coal ever could is coming home to roost. The envirobots have caused the first crisis of the 21st century. The rabid anti-everything green people haters have upset the apple cart good and proper. If their deranged misguidedness is allowed to sway the mind of one more politician in power, one more “prospective candidate”‘s threats of forced environmental stewardship or one more unhinged government policy we will see more of this dangerous loss of control over the “free” markets with the accompanying mayhem.

But. What hope do we really have. The blind truly are leading the blind here. There is absolutely, unequivocally and without question ZERO EVIDENCE OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING THROUGH CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS. If there were a single piece of evidence. A scrap of empirical proof. A smidgen of a fragment of a sliver of a fact that showed, repeatedly and incontrovertibly, that humans have caused the benign but piffling temperature rise that has occurred in the last 60 years by their use of fossil fuels there would still be the question: SHOULD WE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

The aforementioned journalists are the front line of ordinary people’s defense here. It is time they woke up and read some papers themselves instead of spewing propagandistic bull5hit masquerading as science. There is not even a consensus on MMGW let alone scientific agreement. Even if there were this is not a popularity contest we are talking about. Time to stand up and be counted guys. It is one thing to toe the line when your career feeds and clothes your children but when the chances of that still happening this time next year as a slim as they appear to be now then it is time to jump up and down waving your arms and shouting. It was always your job to do so but now it is YOUR DUTY AS HUMAN BEINGS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME. Let me make it a little easier on you. Read the next post and save yourself some time. I have done your research for you – all you need do is verify it and publish. Let’s get to work.

Normal Warming Will Be Resumed As Soon As Technically Possible.

Mark Twain :-
“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”

There is a movement underway to kill science. I will purposefully choose evangelical words and phrases from here on in. When likening AGW to a creed we are not far off the mark. Science and religion have recently swapped hats. We need a crusade to overturn the demagogic ideologues.

The satanic steamroller has a lot of momentum already.
Those scientists who have already thrown their weight behind it will fight tooth and claw to prevent opposing views from being debated, oh yeah, sorry, that is already happening. Politicians will not admit they were suckered, ever, on any subject, so don’t expect to get anything but short shrift from that quarter. The mainstream media will do as they are told, they abandoned the journalistic code http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp some time back and continue to draw salaries for propagating propaganda to the exclusion of all else, particularly the production and disbursement of unbiased news reporting. They all sing from the same hymnbook.
The Citizens, meanwhile, http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=4975.3240.0.0 will go about their business in their manufactured, misinformed, myopic daze. Their suppressed guilt at being able to watch television, drink Starbucks and drive their SUV whilst other inhabitants of planet Earth are starving is being used against them while they sleep. Any truly sentient 1st world person has that guilt and the greens drip their dogma through this crack into our very subconscious. We begin to think that maybe there really are too many people and not enough resources. Maybe the world would be a better place if we stopped using oil and coal to power our infernal machine. Maybe a new stone age is the best option. Maybe following the credo of taxation leading to mitigation is the only path to that goal. Let us accept the draconian measures put forward by those paragons of truth and integrity such as Al Gore and the UN IPCC. After all they got the Dynamite prize for peace did they not? This endorsement surely trumps anything mere scientists can provide. After all our leaders were chosen so as to help us make these informed decisions and to implement policy in our best interests.

There has been a recent test on ABC “news”.
They attacked Fred Singer and a lot of people have reacted strongly http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/comments?type=story&id=4506059 but I feel that there will be no apology given, much less a platform for Fred to defend himself. The usual, false, accusation that he was funded by “Big Oil” is foremost in any attack on Fred but they miss a pertinent point. Whatever came out of “the fossil fuel industry’s multi-million dollar, years long campaign of propaganda to misinform the American public about the reality of global warming”? Where are all the papers, peer reviewed or otherwise, disproving MMGW?

Some may feel this incredible assault was a show of strength, proving that the MSM can do anything. They besmirch one of the world’s most luminous innovators and ignore, or even hide his research and yet promote a proven liar and his science fiction horror story to the exclusion of all else – especially the truth. A set of lies that has, perversely but fittingly, garnered a “Fantasy land” award for a documentary not to mention $100,000,000 in the folding stuff inside the last 8(eight) years for its “creator”. We are through the looking glass. Freedom is slavery.

It all comes down to budgets and agenda. Environmentalism run rampant will produce the diametrical opposite to its stated aims. Maybe that is precisely its adherents’ hidden agenda. We are already seeing world markets in corn, wheat and rice being malformed by an equally twisted belief that food should be turned into fuel even when it is more damaging to the biosphere, more likely to lead to famine and more likely to stall real alternative developments than allowing the free market to prevail. The founder of Greenpeace, Dr. Patrick Moore has stated that Greenpeace itself and its’ policies; “Tend strongly to be anti-human”, “anti science and technology”, “anti-trade and anti-capitalism”, “anti-business”, “anti-civilization”, and “invariably misleading”. Greenpeace are only one arrow in the fundamentalists’ quiver.

They ignore, purposefully, the tortuous and hazard strewn road that got us from the cave to the space station. We lived without fire. Miserably. We burned wood and still merely subsisted even when we discovered charcoal and invented metalworking. We found the energy locked up in coal and even the working classes began to live longer and enjoy a modicum of leisure time. Oil is merely the next, fortuitously discovered step on this path toward a world without waste. Thankfully we have hundreds of years of easily exploited reserves of oil and coal to see us through until we find better alternatives. Doubly fortunate is the fact that the only, long lived, output when we burn this treasure sensibly is plant food and we are nowhere near(less than 25%) to having optimum levels of that present in our atmosphere. Even if another China was to burst onto the scene we have centuries before a truly beneficial concentration is achieved. Meanwhile we are exporting to the whole world, especially the developing nations who are most in need of it, free fertilizer. Another hateful waste in the envious green eyes of the environmentalists. Why should the useless eaters get anything for free, especially unfettered amounts of the life giving gas?

There is merit in the argument that climate change, and global warming in particular, allowed us to thrive and expand yet now it and the accompanying increase in CO2, which preceded the other, is made out to be a dangerous threat to humanity. Pull the other one it has alarm bells on it.

Time is a luxury we no longer have, even though cooling is upon us and the Sun will soon out all these “learned” idiots, we are in the grip of dark forces that hide under a banner of green yet are anything but.

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:

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.

Thank you UN IPCC for AGW BS.

George Bernard Shaw :-
“When a thing is funny, search it carefully for a hidden truth.”

Bet you didn’t see that one coming. Tarry a moment though and you will see what I mean.

There has been so much effort put into the current “humans caused warming” and “SUV warms planet” and “coal and oil are bad, mkay” that, when the scales are lifted from Mr and Mrs average citizen’s eyes, there will occur nothing less than a shift of power. The main stream media will be dealt it’s long awaited and most deserved death blow. People will remember this vicious scam for a long time. A paradigm shift will happen and alternative media will be the big winner. Never again will the general public blindly follow the dictates of supposed authority. This is a good thing.

The truth always emerges. When it becomes obvious that there were very few instigators of this assault on modern man then mankind, as a whole, will see through the veil of AGW to the Malthusian agenda that these few fascists were really aiming for. When, thankfully now and not in another cycle’s time, the Earth cools and it becomes obvious to all of us that we rely on the Sun for our climate / weather people will ask questions. Questions that can only be answered with revelations.

The hysterical, vociferous, unrelenting, counter-intuitive fear mongering to which we are currently subject will be held up as the perfect example of attempted control through the use of repeated lies and propaganda. In future all citizens will become harder to fool with fake scientific proclamations. The talking head propaganda machine will be exposed for the meat grinder that it is. The uncovering of the vast effort that has been so obviously employed in this case will lead to the awareness that we are continually bombarded by lies and that the truth is very often the opposite of what we are force fed by the real enemies of freedom, the press, television and radio.

The “scientists” who claim that any person, and by inference their interviews, documents and websites, who stands up to the wall of noise or exposes some aspect of this attack on humanity is, or was, in the employ of big oil/coal/tobacco therefore anything they utter becomes instantly invalidated as a result of their prior connections or employers will be exposed as unthinking drones or manipulative scoundrels. They are so bereft of inner vision, instinct and integrity that they cannot see how strange and biased they appear to the rest of us. They revere science and “peer review” as their God but the Sun has come to rescue us from their “old boys network”and we should be eternally thankful.

Rarely will we link out to others but here are two important ones:

Green Agenda and Maurice Strong

Peer Review Must Die

Niels Bohr :-
“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

Peer review is very badly flawed. Peer review is only as good as the peers it uses as referees. If nearly everyone who reviews for an entity is in the thrall of the same mistake then they will not find it in papers they review, and the entity, and its papers, will propagate it.

“Peer review is an inherently conservative process, that encourages the emergence of self-serving cliques of reviewers, who are more likely to review each others’ grant proposals and publications favourably than those submitted by researchers from outside the group.”

“The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits. We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.”

“In the June 12, 1996 Wall Street Journal, Dr. Fred Seitz stated, “In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report”. Yet in the eyes of the media, Hollywood, and the alarmists, the IPCC gets an unexamined free pass.”Peer review must die like the old boys network that it is. It is a closed loop.