Bazz

Thanks for the information. As for 'arguing', that's all the Left does, but their arguments are tripe, certainly of no use against professionals who actually know what they are talking about, and they haven't convinced anyone here in the decades they have been barking.

Paul,

I agree with you that the political extremes are both revolting with much in common, like cleptocratic authoritarian rulers, a controlled media, brainwashed population, sham democracy, and no problem with war crimes or the murder and torture of any opposition. You often describe others on the forum as Nazis, so obviously you have a strong dislike of Nazism, but as far as I can see the Russian Federation is currently the closest thing to a Nazi regime in the world, yet you never seem to offer much criticism of it. I don't think I have come across people promoting Nazism on this forum.

Fester,

I am often referred to as a Communist on this forum by others, so calling them Nazi's is of no consequence. You say; " I don't think I have come across people promoting Nazism on this forum", I say; no more than you or others have come across me or others promoting Communism.

That is good to know that you speak from your heart Paul. I certainly don't comment here with the intention of pushing any political agenda. On climate and CO2, my concern is that the solution being proposed might cause more harm than the problem itself. I think of my participation in this forum as no more than a chance to call out from the peanut gallery.

Hi Fester,

Thanks for the above.

Extremists do not come to power by accident, a particular set of extreme circumstances creates a political vacuum which allows for extremism to propagate and eventually take over, Germany 1930's, Russia 1917. Both Hitler and Stalin were products of a disastrous political environment existing in those countries at that time. That's not to say that moderate political societies such as ours, don't have problem, we do, but we try to address problems in a non violent democratic way regardless of who is in office. That is definitely a good thing.

Dear Bazz,

I did look him up.

This is from his Wikipedia page.

"The IPCC (2007) estimates that the expected rise in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 to be about 3 °C (5.4 °F), ± 1.5°. Lindzen has given estimates of the Earth's climate sensitivity to be 0.5 °C based on ERBE data. These estimates were criticized by Kevin E. Trenberth and others, and Lindzen accepted that his paper included "some stupid mistakes". When interviewed, he said "It was just embarrassing", and added that "The technical details of satellite measurements are really sort of grotesque." Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS. The four reviewers of the paper, two of whom had been selected by Lindzen, strongly criticized the paper and PNAS rejected it for publication. Lindzen and Choi then succeeded in getting a little known Korean journal to publish it as a 2011 paper. Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change. Suggestions that significant revisions to mainstream climate science are required are therefore not supported."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Anything you would like to add?