Dear Hasbeen,

Happy new year old cock.

Now that we have got the pleasantries out of the way we had better get down to brass tacks.

People and property are being lost in unprecedented fires all predicted by climate change modelling yet you still have your head so firmly up your backside that you think it is okay to spew out this kind of stuff? What a pile of 5th hand garbage you have smeared across our screens.

You claim; “Der Spiegel reported on the study, which George W. Bush presented, on February 22, 2004”

George Bush presented a study? Even you know that is absurd. So we have some idiotic blog posting up a 15 year old story by German newspaper of a secret Department of Defence document running a particular scenario based on a 100 year event which happened 8,200 years ago.

Right from the very get go they were at pains to point out this was pushing the boundaries of what future scenarios might bring. Further the climate scientists they consulted cautioned them that the scenario was “extreme”. This was just speculative war gaming which goes on all the time.

“The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security. We have interviewed leading climate change scientists, conducted additional research, and reviewed several iterations of the scenario with these experts. The scientists support this project, but caution that the scenario depicted is extreme in two fundamental ways. First, they suggest the occurrences we outline would most likely happen in a few regions, rather than on globally. Second, they say the magnitude of the event may be considerably smaller.”
http://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a469325.pdf

So mate you do not get to call anyone alarmist when you have joined others in elevating a study on a highly unlikely scenario as being accepted by the climate science fraternity. The predictions are dire enough without people like you deflecting with crap like this.

Grow up.

It's good to see that everyone concurs with the burning of fossil fuels as the only probable cause of global warming over the past 240 years that is responsible for raising the mean global temperature 1 deg C above the pre-industrial level.

ALTRAV,

1. Do you concede that modern climate science is fundamentally BASED ON understanding paleo-climate? That was my first post to you. That's what this is about. The fact that you FLEE that subject and then just start rotating through everything else you have against climate activists and documentaries screams heaps.

2. Do you REALLY believe in an all powerful anti-science climate conspiracy that somehow hides the truth? What measures of evidence would disprove that claim? What measures would prove it? How on earth does anyone even discuss what seems to be more of a blind faith worldview system than something someone can concretely prove?

EG: Imagine I said you were only denying climate science because there's a worldwide funded conspiracy to deceive people in nursing homes, church groups, schools, and other community groups? How would I prove that? Oh wait... here it is!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaKm89eVhoE

SR, WTF, who the hell made you the authority on GW and CC?
You want to tone it down mate, I've been chatted in the past for running off at the mouth, but you mate, you take it to a whole new level.
Firstly, you are not a scientist, therefore you know NOTHING about what you bluster on about.
You are in fact at about the same level as that maggot of an arrogant mentally ill child, which with any luck is institutionalised by now.
She too is clueless and just kept on repeating what she had been told to say, not really understanding what she was on about.
Be careful, with such emotions and attacks as you have just displayed you will be given a spot addressing the UN.
Apparently after the sick kid, you sound just like her and would fit right in.
Secondly, you have done NO research of your own, or if you had you would have shoved it in our face by now.
So, in summarising your continual and incomprehensible superior attitude, you actually don't know of the things you speak, only by second hand and anecdotal.
So tell us all, why the hell we should even acknowledge you or your comments?
OH yes, and one final thing, STOP PICKING ON PEOPLE!
If they are too humble to say anything, I'm not!
You are a class 'A' bully.
You must be a thrill to be around these days, and I can only imagine what a thrill you must have been as a child.

Max, No I don't agree with anything the so called "experts" come up with.
I have said again and again, that the amount of CO2 or damage to the world, that we humans are responsible for, is NEGLIGIBLE!
So, do not take an example, a fact, or a piece of information and massage it into assisting you to make your point, when there are too many points, either in contradiction or yet untested or unproven, let alone the historical ones that have been completely avoided, for fear of them risking or diluting the GW, CC campaign, and keeping it front and centre.
So if you want to just speak of the facts, I have always said, yes it is possible we have added to the global CO2.
But you guys stop there.
If this were a court of law, the lawyer would carry on and ask, how much have we contributed to this alleged problem?
And the answer, the truth is, .1 of 1.4%.
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE! (Jim Carrey, Liar, Liar)
The answer to your second proposition is a resounding YES!
I know what I've discovered and found over the years, and as much as you and your running mates find it hard to believe, we are being conned, and have been for decades, possibly centuries.
Let me educate you, with one simple statement.
Yes there are people so vial, so arrogant, so evil, with such hate that they believe in a book written by who knows exactly who, that commands them to take over the world and enslave the people who are not of their faith.
Now all this, even though it's as preposterous and ridiculous as it sounds, is never-the-less true.
Some time ago when the world leaders of this sick cult got together for a conference, I read the speech that was read by the head sicko, and it would make everyone on OLO cringe and immediately instigate a call to arms, to get rid of these people and head off this attack on mankind.

What point of belief have I reached ?
Well, I started out believing the AGW theory, but became puzzled by
some of the contrary statements about evidence.
Some questioned the sensitivity of the earth temperature to the co2.
The question was yes the earth would be warmed by extra co2 but by
nowhere near the amount claimed.
A very eminent scientist Richard Lindzen at MIT denies AGW.
He is a respected climate scientist and still says AGW is not real.
Reports like that sewed my doubts.
Predictions failed as the years went by. Polar bears multiplied.
The dams did refill, etc etc etc.
Then in 2019 I read the Turku Uni groups paper.
Interesting, was it just a coincidence that the current warming was
accruing just 230 years after the Maunder minimum.
It would be interesting to get a more accurate reading of each warm
period maximum date. Because it is such a complex mix of cycles the
time between maximums will vary. So far the peaks seem to be around
250 to 300 years apart. Hence the medieval warm period and the Maunder
minimum are about 800 years apart, 3 half cycles.
I look forward to more info on this.