So you don't hate humanity Squeers just the best system for social and economic organisation, democratic capitalism, that humanity has ever had; the distinction you attempt to make is very fine.

More people live better lives than at any other time in the human race.

I think Poirot's "polluting its nest" is a red herring.

In fact what the AGW scam has done is relegate REAL pollution issues to the bottom of the heap.

AGW has also changed the criteria for distinguishing what is a pollution; instead of a pollutant being what is destructive to humanity it is now defined as anything which taints pristine nature.

As well as misanthropism AGW has allowed the idea that nature is benevolent and a natural life is better than one that is not to be the dominant criteria for judging humanity.

But none of these emotive and ideological terms are defined except in a negative sense to berate the democratic capitalistic form.

Nature is not benevolent and the reason why more people enjoy better lives today is because humanity has used energy and technology to keep nature at bay.

Steven,

<<Neither Feynman nor Gell-Mann are/were “climate scientists … Neither is Dyson old son>>

Hmmm! I never realized my barbs cut so deep.

Dyson doesn’t have to be a climate scientist –he wasn’t commenting on the “science” but the antics Hansen.

Listen, Steven, you come across as a reasonable guy. And I can see from your comments above about the US election, you're not easy fooled by hype.
You don’t belong on the same side of the house as the maximifidianist coalition of Squeers. Poirot and JulianC.
How about you cross the floor to our side –there’s a few spare seats left and, better to make your move now before the stampede.

This is a post by me to OLO from one year ago. Steven appears to have learnt nothing in the ensuing year.:

“It is not up to the realists to disprove AGW, it is up to the proponents of AGW to produce proof that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, which so far they have failed to do.

Certainly they have engineered statements from prestigious bodies to the effect that human emissions affect climate, but these statements are unsupported by science.

We need a Royal Commission into how this travesty is brought about. How does it come about that reputable entities issue statements, unsupported by science, and against the wishes of their scientist members?

Remember when the mendacious IPCC announced that AGW was “very likely”, and that this would be borne out when the “hotspot” in the troposphere was demonstrated, which would be the “signature” for AGW?

Of course there has been no “hotspot” shown to exist, no “signature” of the effect of human emissions, and no retraction from the IPCC, whose estimates were obviously far too high, and thus not borne out by the real world.

Everyone knows that, Steven, even you, but it is not sufficient to prevent you from diversions and obfuscations to hide the truth. There is no scientific proof for the assertion that human emissions have an effect on climate which is other than negligible. You are also aware that the onus of proof is on the alarmists who put forward the proposition.

It has been shown, in peer reviewed papers, that climate including current climate, conforms to established natural cycles. This leaves little room for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect, and attempts to back the assertion on a scientific basis have failed.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide comprise 3% of the natural CO2 cycle. The CO2 cycle has a 10% natural variation. It is little wonder that the alarmists are unable to demonstrate any effect from the contribution of human emissions, and their dishonest attempts are less than admirable.”

Cohenite,

What you say about modern advances is borne out by this brilliant little article on human mortality through history:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/10/1215627109.full.pdf+html

As the article points out, peasants had barely much longer life expectancies than hunter-gatherers, around 40-47 years, but since about the 1840s, i.e. modern industry, increase in life expectancy has risen by about three months for every year - a 'stunningly linear' pattern, as the article suggests - in highly industrialised countries, such as Australia, where life expectancy is around 80-85.

Perhaps Marx was right, and capitalism has played a revolutionary role in - perhaps inadvertently, and surely for its own profit - extending life expectancy, in almost guaranteeing far better health, and thereby extending life-opportunities for billions of people.

The question is: should a sea-level rise of 2-6 inches, and a temperature rise of 0.7 degrees in a century, be the price we pay for an effective doubling of life expectancy ?

I'll let the blow-flies buzz around that one, full of sound and fury but without actually saying anything :)

Best wishes,

Joe

Thanks Joe; the definitive text for me which proves that humankind is improving general living conditions and overcoming the tyranny of nature is Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.

This is a monumental book, well researched and comprehensive. Lomborg's research not only shows that humanity is doing better today with modern technology prevailing over nature but with progress nature does better than in more primitive, more natural societies.

This is, of course, a massive irony that the AGW supporting nitwits ignore.

Loudmouth says - "Please try - if you feel inclined - to confront those issues, without side-tracking, and ad homineming...."

Your last post was a side-track - and you finished it off with an ad hom...."I'll let the blow-flies buzz around that one..."

All perfectly fine, of course, except "you" always make such a song and dance about such things, giving little lectures and holding yourself aloft, while preemptively admonishing your opponents against such tactics.

(And I like your reference to the doubling of life expectancy, ignoring the fact that it's only extended to the wasteful, opulent West - the West that plunders less fortunate societies)

I'm sure I'm imagining your hypocrisy and that you'll jump straight on the thread to berate your mate cohenite for his ad hominem reference to AGW nitwits.

(But I won't hold my breath : )