The climate is changing, quick, throw another virgin into the volcano!

The globe is cooling while CO2 levels are rising. To the extent there was a scientific consensus that the globe is warming, that consensus was wrong. It was based on computer models, all of which were wrong. If the science were settled, there would be one model, and it would have correctly predicted the cooling. Where is the EVIDENCE of catastrophic man-made global warming? Governments have spent over $50 billion dollars looking for it and failed, which is why all those government-funded scientists have been suppressing evidence, falsifying records and stifling dissent. All they have come up with is a massive and corrupt scheme for vested interest in politicised handouts, surprise surprise. Oh and perhaps if we keep trying socialism it will work eventually? Rather than fretting about a non-problem, it would be more to the point to abolish government funding of science, of which this entire scam is an artefact.

Only deliberate dishonesty, or astounding idiocy, can now explain the adherence of the warmists to their nonsense on stilts.

The gathering at Copenhagen is nothing but a festival of anti-human hypocrites and parasites. They belong in prison - after they walk home!

Peter-O-Peter-O-Tool. You still haven't a clue, and you still rant like a screaming banshee.

1. "The globe is cooling while CO2 levels are rising."

Please, learn something about signal and noise, weather and climate, natural variability and the enhanced greenhouse effect

2 "To the extent there was a scientific consensus that the globe is warming, that consensus was wrong."

Wrong.

3. "It was based on computer models"

No, it wasn't.

4. "all of which were wrong."

Wrong.

5. "If the science were settled".

Science can't ever give you 100% certainty.

6. "there would be one model"

Bollocks.

7. "and it would have correctly predicted the cooling."

It is impossible to predict the future, any dumb-nut knows that.

8. "Where is the EVIDENCE of catastrophic man-made global warming?"

There isn't any, how can you have evidence of something that hasn't happened yet?

9. "(ALL) Governments have spent over $50 billion ... suppressing evidence, falsifying records and stifling dissent ... massive and corrupt scheme for vested interest in politicised handouts ... socialism ... non-problem ... it would be more to the point to abolish government funding of science, of which this entire scam is an artefact."

Phew! So, it's all about politics. Just as I thought, the science is sound.

10. "Only deliberate dishonesty, or astounding idiocy, can now explain the adherence of the warmists to their nonsense on stilts."

Go seek help, seriously.

11. "The gathering at Copenhagen is nothing but a festival of anti-human hypocrites and parasites. They belong in prison - after they walk home!"

Yep, you're definitely off with the pixies.

No, Q&A, it's Copenhagan where you'll find the pixies, that is except for the smarties, who are using the pixies, like you, to make themselves rich.

You are like 2 of the monkies. Hands over ears, & eyes, so as not to see what you know is there, but want to ignore, with the mouth uncovered, to keep prattling.

Everyone, who thought about it, has known for years, what a con was going on, but some hate the thought, so pretend it's not happening, & some want to hitch onto it, & grab a quid. To be kind, I think you may be the former.

I do approve of the standards enforced in this forum ... there is no automated cure for 'astounding idiocy' of course, and who would have guessed that a reader of Thomas Pynchon would find a niche with the deniers?

it would be easy to digress, following the paranoia motif in Pynchon, which a Canadian critic, Northrop Frye, correlated with the subject/object split, and which so easily leads my wandering mind (by a commodius vicus of recirculation) to something like Charles Taylor's 'A Secular Age' and other such speculations that the nature of knowing itself has shifted beneath our feet in the last decades

and that digression might not be entirely a waste of time either - as I read the comments here I am struck by the stupidity of course, but stupidity packaged by a sensibility which can recognize a pretty sentence when it sees one, viz.: "Only deliberate dishonesty, or astounding idiocy, can now explain the adherence of the warmists to their nonsense on stilts."

there is a symmetry I think between this partly-educated ranting, and the kind of statements you used to hear in bar room conversation around homosexuality, grounded in ignorance and fear and overly-eager to prove disalliegance, what greater fear for those with any sensitivity whatsoever than looming human extinction?

comparing global responses to the financial crisis and global warming gives me a clue - when Hardin used the word 'commons' in 1968 there was still a physical commons in existence, or at least it was there in living memory, but I wonder if the immediate ante of several trillions of dollars to save the banks doesn't indicate that the concept of 'commons' has migrated completely into the abstract?

uh oh, coming up on 350 words ... so ... it will be a decade, maybe two or three, before the crises arrive and that most effective part of human consciousness which can only respond to sabre toothed tigers kicks in - in the meantime why not indulge in idle speculation? I think we passed the point of no return this week in Copenhagen anyway ...

Q&A

You sick 'im sir, sick 'im ! I'm sick of arguing with the willfully ignorant.

Fingers in ears and la la isn't scepticism, its anti intellectual prejudice plain and simple.

I didn't notice any of these characters trying to correct the science with science on the 'general' posting.

I wonder how many of them actually understand the science? my guess is none. Clearly they view science and scientists a bunch pagan shaman and as useful. A bunch so dilettante as to be a waste space and money solely interested in thinking up ways to get their share of the pie. Not realizing that if they get it wrong 15-20 years or more goes down the drain.
_____________
All

The mind boggles at how some of you choose a medical practitioner if we follow your logic. A GP for brain surgery, a Optometrist for dentistry, perhaps. (certainly cheaper...but...) well, their all health professionals.

Then there's the back room punch ups between competing specialists groups of medical researchers...so, shall we ignore their research? How about the drug because it has some faults or side effects?
Yet their control mechanisms are narrower, involving less disciplines and all subject to profit motive.
Shall we talk about the manipulation of the market by their unions end Big Pharma? nah they're capitalists, that's makes the difference, obviously.

Climate science involves a plethora of discreet disciplines, each with their own critical peer competitive, peer examination processes.
Also less inclined to be controlled by the profit margin. Can you imagine trying to sell a kilo of climate?

Careers in science are bloody hard to build and very easy to destroy, more than in the commercial field. You blow a business you can start another one, in science, good luck.

examinator

You are probably right, they are willfully ignorant. As far as trying to "correct" the science in the forum ... better left elsewhere, a lot of noise there (but good intentions) - I note GrahamY has bailed out, despite his initial hubris.

I agree, "fingers in ears and la la isn't scepticism, its anti intellectual prejudice plain and simple."

I would go a bit further though:

AGW 'denial' (like that shown by Hasbeen, Peter Hume and Co) is a defense mechanism.

They are faced with a few facts that are too uncomfortable for them to accept. So they reject these facts, insisting that they are not true, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

'Deniers' deny the reality of unpleasant facts altogether (simple denial), or they admit the facts but deny their seriousness (minimisation), or they admit both the facts and seriousness, but deny responsibility (transference).

You know examinator, what is really worrying is that 'deniers' usually deny their denial, and it culminates in them accusing their antagonists of the very things that they are culpable of themselves - see Hasbeen's above post.

What I find so extraordinary is that, while the leaders of all the political, economic and religious ideologies of the world are meeting in Copenhagen right now to negotiate a strategy to adapt to climate change and mitigate GHG's, you have dumb-nuts trying to say the science is all wrong, or that it is some kind of conspiracy between all these opposing ideologies.

At COP15, they are not arguing the science (they all accept it). They are having a real bun-fight on how to adapt to a warmer and wetter world, when to do it, how it should be done, who's going to pay and how to live in a more sustainable way - nothing to do with the science.

And what do the the 'hasbeens' of this world do? They blind themselves, clamp their ears and chant some conspiracy mantra. Worst of all, they close their minds to what can be done - talk about a retrograde mindset. Simply astounding.