Image via Wikipedia
At WUWT a post “Sense and Sensitivity II – the sequel” authored by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, has attracted some 50+ approval votes and over 150 comments.
Much good information, mostly about the atmospheric CO2 effects on global temperature, is contained in the post and even more in the comments section where a debate is raging. Unlike many blog debates, there is a great deal of scientific content to be found.
Yet it continues on, seemingly endlessly, prompting me to contribute this following comment to their post.
“This particular post, particularly via its commentary, is of extraordinary educational value. The science is strongly present, the petty bickering minimal, the general tone pleasant and the standard high (IMHO). What seems obvious to me, as an overall summation, is that the SCIENCE IS NOT SETTLED. Perhaps it never can be. Even maintainng(sic) a rigorous scientific approach, there seem to be too many variables and too few scientific laws and rules which can be said to be clearly applied with any expectation of a convincing conclusion. This, together with the unfortunate polarisation that has developed outside of the science, which now blocks, or contaminates a sane, clearthinking approach to the debate, produces what seems to be an endless, almost futile excercise.”
Not a world-changing or even debate-changing statement, but not too far from reality, I suspect.
Hopefully, the “AGW/climate change” claimed motivation for carbon controls and associated financial and political will eventually become generally accepted by scientists, governments and the public as baseless and be seen as a fraud. Perhaps not because of scientific proofs but more likely, as time goes by, the natural progression of our climate will physically prove it to be absolutely independent of carbon influences.
But even then, the damage will have been done and the global control of countries, their finances and socio-political structures will probably be irreversible. Either that or there will be a full-scale global revolution against the hierarchy.
SO, if readers are interested in this topic, I strongly recommend your visiting WUWT to follow the subject post and to check out the enormous amount of other relevant information.
Think about it! Apply your own thinking powers and assessments. Take nothing for granted. It is hard for me to understand that, based on all the available information and commentary, that anyone can possibly logically argue that the science is settled. Is it not obvious that it is NOT?
How can so many people be arguing, strongly and with so much evidence, about something if it really was “settled”? At least some of the IPCC claims and conclusions are clearly wrong! Are all the people questioning the validity of the AGW “science” lacking in intelligence or commonsense or logic skills?
I strongly believe that the science is not settled, and ask – why is civilization following this path of forcing a self-destructive re-organization of our industries and power structures?
Read the subject post here.
Related articles
- AGW – Following the Climategate II emails: (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- AGW – One man’s science is another man’s pseudo-science! Part 2. (tgrule.wordpress.com)
- Surprise! No warming in last 11 years (hotair.com)
- OMSI Has Egg On Its Face – Excludes Peer Reviewed Science From Climate Conference (5440fight.com)
- Study: Most Extreme, Eye-Catching “Predictions” About Global Warming Are “Implausible;” New “Science” Points To Less Severe Changes (minx.cc)
- Monckton responds to “potholer54” (wattsupwiththat.com)
- Jentges: Credible scientists dissent on global warming (junkscience.com)
The GOLDEN RULE 
Ken,
You ask “why is civilization following this path of forcing a self-destructive re-organization of our industries and power structures?”
Well take a surf starting at the below websites and see if you get an idea where all this is really coming from. These organisations have been around for quite a while. AGW was just a sort of booster, which may be failing, but these people have ratcheted up a fair number of notches over it.
http://green-agenda.com/index.html
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
http://www.iclei.org/
Click to access Charter_approved_FINALforCOUNCIL20110912.pdf
Check out these videos if you have the time. Warning it may scare you. Tell me what you think.
https://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/tag/iclei/
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Thank you Roger!
If you were aware of my other posts criticising the AGW political agenda, you would have recognised this as a rhetorical question.
There is no doubt in my mind that political and financial control are the driving motivations and “climate change” is their excuse to con the public.
I hope readers follow your links and realize this is not just a figment of my imagination – it is real.
More to the point – I know why the ungodly are following this NWO path, my question is really directed at the people- why are they accepting/permitting/not opposing what is going on?
try using googles translation service.
Cheers
Roger
Appreciated, Roger. Managed to put your suggestion into action
Result was garbage so will now trash the comment.
H/T. Ken
Ken, I notice that you have not been back to my Enjoy the Sun while you can and, even though you said you were going to leave the discussion to John Kosowski, I hope you were not offended by anything I said to you.
With regard to my apparent “flip-flopping” and/or “good cop/bad cop routine” in dealing with him, I think I have apologised and/or explained myself enough. However, his persistent questioning (and avoiding answering my questions) has I believe caused me to raise my game and re-state my arguments evermore succinctly (as indeed I have politely asked him to as well).
Therefore, your readers may like to read my posts (and the online discussions that follow) from earlier this week:
Climate science in a nut fragment (Monday); and/or
Is having an open mind the problem? (Tuesday).
Finally, if you or your readers have not seen Barry Bickmore’s presentation on “How To Avoid The Truth on Climate Change”, I have now re-posted this with his permission on my blog as well (it is an education in itself – IMHO)!
Hi Martin, I felt I wasn’t contributing much influence and John was creating quite enough response without me.
No offence taken. I will look at the suggested post asap. Regards, Ken