What Do We Think About Climate Change

Just like Al Gore right? I think I can do that with more style.

I am a very ethical person, and I say that with no shame.
However that is not shared by many who pedal the opposite view.
Thousands of shameless scientist who have sold out their scientific principles for the sake of their miserable salary.
Dirty and cheap.

 

Of course you are correct, much colder and much warmer, the debate is that now it is our fault. Actually is all my 4wd and my airconditioner and my spa's fault. By elevation it is my money's fault, ergo, if one is successful he/she must be shot for warming up the planet and endangering our kids future.

I order to re-establish "nature's way" we must
A) kill 3/4 of the world population. Some have already put their hand up to re-incarnate into a deadly virus.
B) d-industrialise the world. That is go back to horse and straw houses, dirt roads and hunting for food. Hunting with spears and arrows mind you.
No oil, no coal, no gas. Friction and exercise will be the warmth source of choice.
E) hospitals will of course be no longer sustainable due to their (filthy) reliance on power and technology. Witch doctors can replace the quacks.

I propose to lock up all the looney Greene from around the world on Papua New Guinea and ask Indonesia to donate the west side for the same purpose. They can build up Melanin and heat resistance there and in 50 years we release them so they will think that our (hot up ) planet is actually so much cooler than they thought and so they will let us alone for a while.
PS
Epoxy and hotter planet?
Considering it will be 1 or 2 degree hotter in some 100 years if that, what do you care? And by the way, what does a few degree do to Epoxy?

 

Sure....it's the (many) thousands of scientists worldwide who have sold out their principles, not the handful of degree'd shills parroting what the oil industry says....

Al Gore is pushing the issue hard. But he doesn't claim to be a scientist, and he doesn't claim to have authored any research.

 

Yes....

 

Oh yessss....

 

There is no civilization
without science.
There is no science without
civility.

 

Why are the crucial checks of the science
that underlie changes to entire economies
left to unpaid bloggers and retired
scientists?

 

The “Carbon” Market is
not a commodity. There
is nothing real to trade,
just permits to air-thatmight-
have-had-more-
CO2.
Sub-prime carbon is coming

This is not a free market.
No one would pay a cent
for a “permit” unless it was
forced on them at the point
of a gun*.
* Gun? What gun? Try not paying your carbon taxes
and say “hello” to four grey walls.

 

Fraudulent hockey sticks and hidden data

 

Pink and blue are a good choice

 

Help? How do I know who is right?

 

Spot the real denier

1. Real deniers claim something
needs to be peer reviewed in
order to be discussed. (Bad
luck for Galileo and Einstein
eh?) At the very least this
slows down debate for up to
a year, instead of discussing
results that are right in front
of us now.

2. Real deniers claim it only
“counts” if it comes from a
certified climate scientist. (A
flaw is a flaw, it doesn’t matter
who points it out.)

3. If it is peer reviewed, then real
deniers claim it only counts
if it comes from certain
journals. (The climate IS what
it IS, regardless of anything
printed in any journal.)

4. They claim something can’t
be right because it would
disagree with thousands of
papers. They mock and laugh,
but provide no evidence. Not a
single paper. (Then they claim
that it’s not a single paper
but a “body of work”. Which
disagrees with point 1.)

5. Real deniers assert it must
be wrong because there is a
“consensus”. Notice how they
won’t talk about evidence?
Scientists don’t vote for
natural laws. Science is not a
democracy.

6. If all else fails, they call
people names: Denier,
A denier has many tactics to stop people talking about evidence.
The real deniers here are those pushing a fake crisis.
Peer review is done by two anonymous, unpaid colleagues.
You get what you pay for and peer review is free.
Delayer, Inactivist! This is
stone age reasoning.
7. When they can’t find a real
flaw, they look at “funding”.
(Real scientists research
nature. Fake scientists google
for dirt.)
8. Real Deniers deny that
instruments are right. No! The
simulations are more real than
reality. Trust the models!
9. They threaten dissenters with
jail. Climate Criminals!
Who is the real denier?
To stop discussion:

 

What’s the harm in acting anyway?
We can save energy and stop real pollution without
setting up a whole financial bureaucratic system
based on “thin air”.

 

Shame the anti-science bullies

 

Carbon Dioxide: Eat it for breakfast
Sun + CO2
make FOOD