Hi cohenite,

Shush, Peter is working on an answer. She is trying to justify her earlier comments about the NIPCC and is giving her broadband a severe smacking. She has much work to do and should not be bothered by facts.

King is a goose, she does exaggerate, she does tell “porkies” and she does adopt a superior attitude however, this is hormonal and is all she has left.

I think we should have the good grace to allow this particular goose/gander to continue to poop in it’s own nest.

Lets face it cohenite, if it were not for the ideological stink, how would we know we were in the presence of such intellect.

LOL.

The reason the CAGW boondoggle went viral is that it combined the superficial forms of scientific inquiry with a determined assault against the core of what makes science what it is.

The AGW religion is profoundly anti-scientific in that its appeal is, via heavy and pejorative moralising, to emotion and faith cranked up to sweep aside the practice of dissent and reasoned analysis that underpins scientific discovery.

No feasible reduction in CO2 emission, even if severe enough to reduce civilisation to a brutish depopulated meta-life that would be a misanthropic social engineer's dream, would make a measurable difference to temperatures and sea levels. To see why, study
http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

And how about letting up on lecturing OLO on what it should and shouldn’t be publishing? The Editor does an amazing job of keeping up a daily flow of informative and topical articles and analysis and is to be unstintingly encouraged.

The article omits to mention that the major global temperature measures all show no significant warming for 18 years, making the claims of the AGW alarmists even less credible. But I have a solution which should satisfy everyone: how about linking the West's 'liability' for alleged 'climate change' to actual measures of its occurrence, starting now?