Dear Warmair,

<<If I believed in prayers,then my prayers would be for the world to reduce it's dependance on fossil fuels>>

I should assume that you actually mean the dependence of PEOPLE on fossil fuels, because the world as such does not depend on them at all.

If so, then this goal is noble indeed. In fact this was also the goal of Margaret Thatcher when she invented global warming. Nevertheless, the ends do not justify the means, so nothing justifies her in inventing and faking this story which now victimises the innocent and life-building 6th atomic element.

<<and for people have the courage to base their opinions on the facts rather ideology.>>

Isn't atheism an ideology?
Isn't it a fact that our thoughts influence the universe around us?
Quantum theory tells us that phenomena cannot be determined without an observer.

Now even the most courageous person and greatest hero cannot base their opinions on facts! This is because facts do not say anything about good and evil - absolutely nothing. Facts do not contain any "should"s, "shouldn't"s, values or moral guidance - go ask any scientist: not a single "should", "shouldn't" or a value was ever discovered in nature, neither microscopic nor macroscopic, neither a particle, nor wave, nor a force, nor anything else physical.

Good afternoon Spindoc
I can not find where it says in AR5:-
"The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998"
Perhaps you would be so kind as to point me where I might find the exact quote.

I think you will find the quote below from the AR5 (Summary for Policymakers) page 3 more enlightening.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed,
the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of
greenhouse gases have increased"

Also:-
"Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any
preceding decade since 1850"

By the way I actually assume that most OLO readers are smart enough to understand the difference between a change in "rate" IE an acceleration and a linear increase.

Cheers Yuyutsu

I was using the term ideology primarily in the political sense. I was referring to the situation where a political party introduces a set of polices based on a set of beliefs which are not based on any hard facts. Economic policy on both sides of politics is full of examples which when checked against reality just don't stack up. In theory Marxism is a wonderful idea but in reality its a disaster.

As far as views about right and wrong go religions constantly demonstrate a complete lack of humanity and morals so I see no practical difference between those who hold religious views and those that don't. In the current atmosphere there is no need for me to give examples. I happen to agree with much of the morals as promoted by Jesus, but that does not mean I agree with much of Christian theology. The simplest answer I can give is I believe in Ethics.

Mrs Thatcher did not invent global warming, but the fact that she was a qualified chemist meant, that she well understood the science and found no reason to doubt it. Accusing her of some sort of conspiracy over global warming is a good example of the triumph of ideology over facts.

'morning Poirot,

In Chapter 10 of the IPCC AR5 Working Group 1 Physical Science Basis report the IPCC confirms that increasing CO2 emissions are NOT associated with progressively increasing temperatures as they have predicted:

IPCC confirms, in the AR5 WG1 science report, that there has been a 15 year ‘hiatus’ in global warming, in spite of ‘anthropogenic’ emissions allegedly increasing at a record rate.

IPCC also confirm that this 15 year ‘hiatus’ has been caused predominantly by natural climate variability.

IPCC also conclude in the WG1 scientific report, that the inability to predict this natural variability and the resulting ‘hiatus’ is due to the failure or unreliability of climate models.

Then we have "The statistical significance of warming from 1994-2009 was 95%"?

How can we have 95% certainty for a period mostly covered by the hiatus (no statistically significant warming) that the IPCC acknowledges?

Like I said, if you don't like the contradictions in AR5, take it up with them. Why try to bully us with your bull dust?

It would appear warmair, that you restricted your reading to the whitewash that was written to try to cover the Beattie governments desire to keep as much water in Wivenhoe as possible.

He had ripped off our councils, pinching their right to provide & sell water as part of their legitimate activities.

He even pinched water farmers were paying for to cool Swanbank power station, so he could sell Wivenhoe water to consumers. Of course the farmers still had to pay for the water they did not get.

Thanks to the ratbags green element demanding no dams be built in exchange for preferencing Beattie, & a long dry spell in the Somerset/Wivenhoe catchment we were low on water.

The fool Flannery, & his "it aint gunna rain no more" forecasts had panicked our idiot lefty governments into building desalination plants, & the even dumber Beattie into a 6 BILLION, yes billion water grid, designed to do nothing but pinch everyone else's water to supply Brisbane.

No wonder the fool bureaucrats wanted to keep Wivenhoe full.

That is why the 2011 flood was a beauty, & for no other reason.

Dear Warmair,

Let me assure you that party politics is the last thing I care about. What is it about "both sides of politics" anyway, why just two anyway and what has it got to do with you and me? I view them both as predators whose only purpose is to make our lives miserable.

Regarding religion, I readily agree with you that many so-called "religious institutions" are not (or mostly not) religious.

Regarding Margaret Thatcher, she was at the forefront of the climate-change movement and one of the founders of the IPCC:

http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/04/09/3732680.htm
http://www.masterresource.org/climate-exaggeration/thatcher-alarmist-to-skeptic

Her motive, whether you could identify with it or not, was the desire to break her opposition of coal-mining unions by introducing nuclear power instead.