A commentary on the rise of special interests funded "think tanks" by Clive Hamilton (which, no doubt, will engender howls of derision from the cheap seats : )

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4643

The problem we face,
is THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM not thermal overload.

What sustains life is thermal-gradients or more correctly ENTROPY-gradients.

All THE IPCC models indicate increased ENTROPY-gradients and that is, as people on this blog have generally surmised, good for life.

But there's more to it.

While thermal gradients are ramping up due to CO2 warming, more particularly DEFORESTATION and polluted surface-marine heat-capacity increase are creating a loss of Entropy gradients from polluted to clean, disordered to ordered OR HIGH to LOW ENTROPY.

This is what's most worrying. Its an indication of THERMAL EQUILIBRIUM (death) in the biosphere. There's also a further unorderdness-
a massive loss in important trace elements in agricultural land. These transition elements and lanthenides can only be replaced by volcanic eruptions, not occuring in standard agricultural areas.

Even with warmth, CO2 and Oil based fertilizers, farm production is going to fail without trace elements. Expectations of feeding 8 billion or more are pure IPCC fantasy.

The IPCC's always worried me: they want to control CO2 for ONE REASON: to PANDER to women in the sense that if WE cut CO2 women can have children in an infinite way on a finite planet-IE they'll be HAPPY. This is pure prepubescence.

I am astounded that erstwhile respected scientists claim to know so much about our biosphere but know NOTHING of their own carnal desires.

The problem for the IPCC: by 2030, their beloved women will have contributed to sufficient children, sufficient thermal equilibrium, that life as we know today will be impossible without a major 2/3 CULL of the entire human race.

What's worse, the TOO BIG TO FAIL mentality that always overrules the IPCC is so anti-democratic & bellicose in nature that plans are almost certainly afoot to make huge PROFITS from any such CULL.

Come 2030 I suspect they will be unimmunised & press conferencing a 100-year-3-degree-warming when the virus bombs drop.

Then the NEW RULERS will extirpate fatuous fossil-fuel-backed RENEWABLE ENERGY schemes(including CSG) and go GEOTHERMAL for the next 500 generations. All for THEIR liebensprung children and greater-grandchildren.

Plus ca change ....

Bonmot continues to snipe from under his rock without contributing anything to the debate.

If all you are able to do is criticise people who present the facts and science which you do not like, you are no help on this issue.

You want to support the AGW fraud, so how about some science which shows that human emissions have any effect on climate which is scientifically measurable? The IPCC have none, and even if they did, they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy.

If the waterfront dwelling Minister for Lies about Sea Levels, Combet was observed urinating in the water near his waterfront home, we could say it is polluted, but it would not be possible to scientifically prove it, since it would not be measurable.

Seeing human emissions discharged into the atmosphere is not relevant unless it is measurable. This is apart from the fact that CO2 is not pollution, but a trace gas vital to all life on earth.

For that matter, come up with an explanation as to why, with rising CO2 content in the atmosphere, over the whole of the period, there has been no global warming for the last 14 years.

Warming releases CO2, but there is no basis to assert that CO2 causes warming. The greenhouse theory is badly in need of revision.

Apart from the fact that warming has been shown to be beneficial, what possible basis is there for seeking a reduction of human emissions? Human emissions are calculated to contribute 3% of the CO2 cycle, which has a natural variation of 10%. No wonder human emissions are negligible in their effect.

Come on, bonmot, why don’t you and your little mate poirot come up with just one sensible assertion which can be backed by science or fact, and cease your badmouthing of competent people?

Your sliming of competent sensible people who show up the AGW fraud has reached the point where it is unacceptable.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

Interesting to see that carbon dioxide concentration is way beyond highest historical levels (measured in hundreds of thousand years).

Wonder how that happened?

Leo Lane, I’ve taken the liberty to fix a few typos.

Leo Lane continues to snipe from under his rock without contributing anything to the debate.

Leo Lane can only criticise people who present the facts and science which he does not like, he is no help.

Leo Lane, like a religious fanatic, only believes what he wants to believe – regardless of the truth or how many times it has been shown him.

Leo Lane asserts particular things are immeasurable; why let facts get in the way of his assertions?

Leo Lane does not understand the difference between natural and unnatural variability, or how it is delineated.

Leo Lane wants to overturn 150 years of science with what?

Leo Lane says something is not measurable then says it is.

Leo Lane asserts (by extension) that Leo Lane is competent and sensible.

Leo Lane says: “Come on, bonmot, why don’t you … come up with just one sensible assertion which can be backed by science or fact ...?”

Bonmot has three sensible assertions that can be backed by science and fact;

Leo Lane suffers from;

1. Dissonance of cognition
2. Confirmation bias
3. Motivational reasoning

To such an extent that it has become unacceptable.

Anyone who relies on NASAGISS for information about AGW is an idiot; for recent historical levels of CO2 see:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jdrake/Questioning_Climate/userfiles/Ice-core_corrections_report_2.pdf

And:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

The conclusions being:

CO2 levels from the Early Holocene through pre-industrial times were highly variable and not stable as the Antarctic ice cores suggest.


The carbon and climate cycles are coupled in a consistent manner from the Early Holocene to the present day.


The carbon cycle lags behind the climate cycle and thus does not drive the climate cycle.

The lag time is consistent with the hypothesis of a temperature-driven carbon cycle.


The anthropogenic contribution to the carbon cycle since 1860 is minimal and inconsequential.