Yep, in the end, nobody told the King the sky was falling. But the fox had a very good feed of poultry.

Obviously, the fox cared little for the story, and feasted on the panicked crowd, after luring them down a rabbit hole.

But there is always a bright side, the old hen continued laying her eggs!
I guess that can only mean, someday the chickens will come home to roast in a climate change moment.

Dan

ALTRAV,
I recall as a treat being allowed to go a watch hunky/honkey Robert Redford in his "Three days of the Condor" movie, while under, with my parents. A great 1970's political thriller. but remember the last scene, when Redford thinks the NY times would tell his story... or maybe not??

The AGW movement has been building momentum from 1987 as far as I can recall. Just like Robert Redford character, all we can do is to call out the falsehoods, society will ultimately decide how to react.

Unfortunately unlike the 1970's fictitious world of that movie, social media infects our society with no regulation, no supervision and certainly no transparency.

But as I now enter semi-retirement, "frankly my dear I don't give a dam" and will call out what I see until the CCCers can convince me otherwise with scientific facts, trends and analysis that is verifiable independently.

For the time being its a free world and we haven't yet allowed the AGW/CCC movements to convince us to listen to the Orwellian "Newspeak" and "doublethink"

Altrav: when the government employs 18-year-old kids straight out of high school as ministerial advisors and gives 23-year-olds the power to withhold FOI on highly spurious assumptions, we get what we've got now.

Nobody has mentioned nuclear because 18-year-old advisors have had the living daylights frightened outta them by the BS crap merchants and the robber barons in the now seriously threatened fossil fuel industry.

They won't read Thorium, super fuel subtitled green energy, by prize-winning investigative Journalist and science writer, Richard Martin.

Simply don't get that unconventional nuclear power has nothing in common with conventional nuclear power and that unconventional, walk away safe MSR technology Is far, far cheaper to run and operate.

And operate as unpressurised at the local ambient atmospheric pressure. So, can't explode due to internal pressure like Chernobyl!

Can't meltdown like Fukushima or Chernobyl, because the coolant medium is already molten and the reactor designed to operate at that or higher heat, topping out at 1200C,

With a drain plug at the base that automatically drains the reactor if for any reason there's a power failure. And self drains into a purpose-built storage tank where it cools and solidifies.

While a conventional reactor needs vastly more internal strength and a specially hardened building And during an operational 30 year lifetime, will require 25511 tons of fuel, rare as platinum, from which it'll produce as much as 2550 tons of nuclear waste. Not so MSR!

Whereas the unconventional MSR say a 350 MW FUJI, will require just one single ton of vastly more abundant Thorium.

Moreover, this technology will produce copious quantities of miracle cancer cure, alpha particle isotope, bismuth 213.

And should it suit, can be retasked to burn nuclear waste and provide virtually free, carbon-free energy, tor literally thousands of years and in perfect radiation-free safety, while the half-life is reduced to just 300 years! What else do we need!?

Even as the build and remaining R+D is fully paid for with the annual billions we'd earn as a nuclear waste repository! Seriously!
Alan B.

Alan,

The reason we don't have thorium reactors is because they have no economic justification. Development of the technology would be very costly and I think there would be many technical challenges to overcome. Add to this the facts that the US Navy had viable reactors for its ships and subs, and civilian nuclear power was far more costly than once envisaged, then it is little wonder that the idea lost interest.

The development of SMAs, notably the project by the Rolls Royce engineers, has my interest, but it will be the end of the decade before we start getting an idea of the technology's viability. I am enthusiastic about the development of new technologies, but have seen enough technical "breakthroughs" and cancer "cures" over the years to realise how little chance novel ideas have of succeeding. It is easy to get sucked in by a good sounding story.

Cheers

Fester, if memory serves, the US was already deep in developing MSR reactors.
It was one of their moronic decisions to take the funding away from it and give it to, I'm not sure but I think it was for nuclear weapons.
So as Alan said, because MSR technology was not capable of being weaponised, it was dropped in favour of what we have today.
I don't remember which President pulled the plug on it, but it doesn't matter, the elite Jews were behind it, pulling the Presidents strings, so obviously they went after the money, which was by winning the war, and being they are such callous and un-human bastards, they do not care how many people die, as long as their goals are achieved, which was always money, (wealth) and power.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-true-story-of-the-bilderberg-group-and-what-they-may-be-planning-now/13808

I know this may seem a little off topic, but trust me on this, not much of any consequence or profit at a large scale happens that these bastards are not the instigators and propagators.
And I fear this GW, CC fraud smacks of them all aver again.

Dear Alison Jane,

Still merrily chirping away I see.

You up to answering a question I have repeatedly put to you but one you studiously avoid addressing, what would it take for you to accept that AGW is indeed significantly raising global temperatures?

A certain temperature? An ice free Arctic over summer, a meter sea level rise? Your call, is there anything you could nominate?