Yep they're alarmed all right. Alarmed that their carefully built house of cards, built to help assert UN control in as close to one world government as possible, is collapsing, because the planet & sun are no longer cooperating.

It is going to get even harder for them to keep the public on side, even the greenies, as the cold increases.

Even a greenie has to admit, some time, that global warming can't keep making it colder for ever.

The UN have tried a switch to acidification to try to keep their scam going, but that is just too much a stretch even for non scientific folk to swallow. Those who desperately want UN control, the hard left & most academics will try, but it is over. They have lost. All we have to wait for now is the surrender.

Interesting, surprising & pleasing to find a fairly hard lefty who does not go along with the fraud.

I am an unrepentant moderate lefty from way back. Like everyone in the baby-boomer generation we were propagandized into believing that unlimited material "progress" was the new normal state of affairs.

Sunday night Disneyland was probably the archetypal example of this propaganda meme.

When you really examine this myth it is effectively a (now) world-wide cargo cult. Not really that much different to the naive Cargo Cults that appeared in the islands around New Guinea.

The modern shopping malls are the temples (or really bright-shiny Cathedrals) of this now world-wide cult of unlimited shopping - the credo being "I Shop Therefore I Am" and/or Shopping As Therapy.

A new one was opened just recently in one of the Gulf states. It was of course built with what was effectively SLAVE labour.

All the faithful would-be-shoppers stay faithfully tuned to their TV sets which advertise the arrival of the latest bright-shiny-colorful cargo. They thus get in their cars, go to the magnificent mall/cathedral, buy/collect their bright-shiny-colorful cargo, and go home to perhaps enjoy the momentary pleasure/thrill of their new cargo - until boredom sets in again a day or two later.

Of course we are never told about the shadow side of this Cargo Cult. All the blood sweat and tears involved in the production of this shiny cargo. Or about the world-wide destruction of the environment and the biosphere. Or about the connection to the never-ending oil and resource wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

In short we are never told that perhaps/maybe our Cargo Cult way-of-life is quite literally killing us.

We firmly believe as George Bush indicated in response to September 11, that our Cargo Cult way of life is not negotiable - and/or can go on for forever and a day.
And as a corollary to that naive belief that our "culture" and "civilization" is the most advanced form of human life that has so far appeared on the planet.

Rhrosty, your analogy is invalid because you cannot provide evidence for 98% of climate scientists believing the situation with climate change is catastrophic - akin to an aircraft that is in no condition to fly. The 98% figure is based on eight studies and surveys this century - I have reviewed them all. The alarmists and media in general have been very misleading and possibly dishonest in the way they use these surveys. All that can be said from the surveys by Bray and Von Storch, Oreskes, Harris Interactive, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, Anderegg et al, John Cook et al and James Powell is that 98% of scientists agree with the IPCC's two conclusions: that the planet has warmed over the past 140 years and that human activity is an important or significant factor. If you know of a study or survey that says 98% of scientists believe the situation is catastrophic - akin to an aircraft being in no condition to fly - then present a source for it. Or STOP using a totally invalid analogy. You can read my piece on the 98% here: http://c21stleft.wordpress.com/2014/10/17/what-exactly-do-the-98-of-climate-researchers-believe/

Well, I didn't make that link byork, but now you've raised it, lets stick specifically to bona fide climate scientists, as apposed to so called scientists like say, Lord Muncton?
And if some say there's 98% agreement, then I don't need a link, or propose to provide one at this point.
Better I should wait until the usual suspects have gone out on the proverbial limb and made complete fools of themselves.
Moreover, I'm not here to do anyone else's research for them!
Things that I propose, like a progressive conversion to thorium, (1950's technology) actually enhance our economic performance, rather than harm it. Or even better performing scrubbed, bladder stored biogas, linked feeding onsite ceramic fuel cells.
Which as a combination produce an energy coefficient of 80%, the best in the world; meaning energy created onsite, is 75% less costly than wholesale coal fired power, and the endless free hot water, is an excellent costless boon.
I'm always surprised by the mindless or stubborn resistance to these ideas.
Anyone might be forgiven for believing some people really did want to pay more for their energy and everything that relies on it, like say food processing, clean potable water and transport!?
Rhrosty.

No, Rrhosty, you made a claim via an analogy that was invalid and I'm not letting you 'move on'.

Similar analogies are used frequently by people like Tim Flannery. If it's not engineers and a plane crash, it's medical specialists and some life-threatening illness. The analogy is meant to be a trump-card in debate - but it's not, because it's false.

The onus is on you to back up your claim that 98% of scientists regard the climate situation as potentially catastrophic - because you made the claim through your analogy.

In fact, the surveys reveal that 98% of scientists merely think the world has warmed (by less than 1 degree, according to IPCC) since 1880, and that human activity is a significant factor. That's it! So, either provide evidence for your false claim or stop using an invalid analogy.

I don't understand why journalists do not challenge Flannery et al every time they use the false 98% analogy. It is clearly invalid. But then again, journalists are so uncritical these days.

Was it 30,000, 32,000, or 39,000 scientists that signed that partition to say they did not believe in the scam of global warming?

Regardless of how many, & how many of the 56 authors of the IPCC bit of bumph, claim the signers were not all scientists, it sure proves more don't believe than do.

Don't worry folks, the whole thing is on it's last legs, soon to whither away for ever, a bit like the belief of 99.99% of medical people, who believed stomach ulcers were caused by worry. We should never forget how subject to group think our academics are. They get lonely without a group.