Rene Descartes :- If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.
CO2 is a vital component of our atmosphere as all life depends on the carbon cycle and plant food should not be taxed. CO2 should be increased if anything – upward from the 380ppmv of today (considered a dangerously low level) to at least 1500ppmv so that plant life will accelerate its growth and increase in size. This is the greatest gift the developed countries can give to the third world – Free fertilizer! Punishing humanity for producing CO2 is a moral, fiscal and unpardonable attack on progress and advancement of the human condition. Al Gore has made over 100 million dollars in the last 8 years, gained an Oscar for his rockumentary cartoon, been given the Nobel Peace Prize for (to be polite) proclaiming a false premise AND he has partnered with bankers to form the main carbon credit trading companies. This has to stop. The spite and scorn poured on anyone who dares deny the warmer’s mantra must stop. The science is far from settled. El Bore should immediately return his trophies and spend his new found fortune undoing the inestimable harm that has already been triggered as a result of his pompous posturing. The IPCC should immediately stop spending taxpayer money on junkets in far-away places (mostly warm with great nightlife) for the tens of thousands of “delegates” and hangers-on who have the audacity to fly there only to “decide” where their next party will be. This must stop. The lies must be revealed. There is a bright future if we can undo this carp. The world needs to see that manipulation on a global scale can and does exist. The benefits of overthrowing this charade are manifold. Including the exposure of “peer review” for what it is – a mandate for friends to back up each other and their theories to the detriment of truth, society and persons with opposite views. To my mind the most deserving casualty of the exposure of the UN IPCC confection is going to be “peer review” and it’s mantra of “settled science” through “consensus”. Crock of shirts. The old boys network laid bare. We need to take a different tack. Humanity is not best served by allowing “peers” to “review” anything, let alone science that may drive policy. As time passes this need becomes more relevant – we don’t want the IPCC to actually decide anything do we? They would be basing their decision on flawed science so the outcome would only be bad for the majority in this author’s opinion. The IPCC must disband forthwith.