Economist, Peter Smith (Quadrant), has been mapping the ducking and diving, twisting and turning of the climate hysterics (AKA rent-seekers or grant gougers) since the time when the “science was settled”, through the different phases which proved that the 'science' was far from settled.

First, the globe was not warming as the 'science' said it was. So, to keep the money coming in, global 'warming' was amended to climate 'change'; still the fault of the gas carbon dioxide, of course, which the gougers allowed the gullible to wrongly think of as dirty great chunks of black stuff. There was never a carbon dioxide tax; it was a carbon tax, which sounds much worse and gets people more panicky. Simple record checking showed those interested in truth rather than bodgie science that there had been no warming for decades, and that droughts and flooding rains, as well as instances of cyclones, bushfires etc, had not changed either. On top of all these setbacks, real scientists (very few of the urgers and rent-seekers are scientists at all) proved that climate change is a perfectly natural occurrence which has been happening since the year dot. Nothing at all to do with dreadful human beings trying to scratch out a living and get on with things.

Professor David Karoly, a “climate expert”, decided to gee up the horror story with a new paper, which an equally qualified (at least) sceptic Steve McIntyre identified as being riddled with errors, causing it to be quickly withdrawn. After four years, the report appeared again, with much less alarming propaganda. The media didn't bother to let us know about this balls-up by an 'expert'.

Continued......

….. Continued

So, what is the latest desperate ploy, as the 'science' continues to be revealed as crap? Well, CO2 is still a villain, and if its global warming effect isn't true after all, at least it is still causing another handy malady, “extreme weather”; which I take to mean all the things which the records show have not changed. Perhaps they think we have forgotten about the old lies because they have confused us with so many different reasons for ripping us off via grants and absurdly high power prices over the years since they started scare-mongering. Even if these 'experts' can control nature and drop the temperature, there will still be “extreme weather”, and CO2 will still be a nasty pasty. And, thanks to our ignorant political class, the big bucks will continue going to the climate crooks; even though we have now been through “catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, to Climate Disruption” without the idiots controlling the purse strings twigging that have been well and truly scammed. The scammers, having realised that sensible people no longer believe them, have re-tuned the 'threats' of CO2 so that a drop in temperature can now be blamed, and the money will keep on coming until the next Ice Age.

Hard work! trying to get reasonable in a thread that starts out so doggedly to defame every thing I believe in, see I felt the 46 degrees last summer, the stifling never going away hot nights,no way I could ever think humans have never stuffed any thing up, just visit a roadside rest area, best leave you to it.

Dear Belly,

Galileo was put under house arrest by the Vatican for
saying that the earth moved around the sun. In fact,
in 1633 the church made him recant his theory of the
universe.

Nothing much has changed in all that time. New
ideas, today - instead of being welcome for the opportunities
they open up for the improvement of the human lot, will
always become threats to those who are comfortable in their
ideologies (religious or otherwise). Little has changed
when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by
scientific facts.

Belly,

Forty six degrees! Where do you live? Marble Bar? Beliefs and ideas cannot be “defamed”. They can be disproved, and the climate itself has disproved most, if not all, of the wild claims made by confidence tricksters.

Were you biting your knuckles when you heard that Trump had withdrawn the U.S from the Paris Accord? He has got everything else right as well. You have been horribly wrong about Trump. Could you not be wrong about the AGW theory of climate change as well?

Climate change is real. The touted cause of it is not. The fraud will eventually become too obvious to ignore; in the meantime, you are being ripped off just as much as I am.

I don't know why you find it hard to be “reasonable” on this matter. Are you saying that you don't have any reasonable arguments against what I say?

ttbn,
You are lying when you claim "Simple record checking showed those interested in truth rather than bodgie science that there had been no warming for decades"; it actually showed the world had been warming for decades, and the satellite data concurred.

You don't believe it because you don't want it to be true. So like runner, you instantly decide that anything that fits your predetermined conclusion is true, and that anything that goes against it is either sloppy research or a conspiracy to falsify the evidence.

In reality the only conspiracy to falsify evidence was the neocon conspiracy to try to convince people that it isn't happening, isn't manmade or isn't serious. The neocons are the ones who insisted on using the term "climate change" rather than "global warming". They did so because the former sounded less threatening. Before that, both terms were used almost equally in scientific papers, but "global warming" had been used more by the mainstream media - presumably because they regarded it as more attention grabbing.

All scientists know that the climate is naturally dynamic and constantly changing. But they also know that altering the composition of this planet's atmosphere alters the climate, whereas you seem to have trouble comprehending that.

I heard on the radio a few moths ago that a lot of conservatives chose to disbelieve AGW because doing something about it would require government intervention which they're ideologically opposed to - especially when involving an international agreement. Would I be correct in concluding you share this ideological opposition to government intervention?