The facts, and the truth are immaterial. They don't care whether we believe them, or not. Suffice it to say, we ALL know the agenda, and it's based neither on climate change, nor science.

So, whatever they proclaim, to their minds, will be all we need to know. They are the funded 'scientists', and it is they who come up with the required results to please their governmental puppet masters, in order to a). maintain their funding, and b). satisfy the voracious UN, who would have us caged, and otherwise restricted, on pain of prosecution.

We know it's a scam, and they know WE know, but that is of little relevance.

It's all about the money. If the government decided one day to massively fund studies of man having no effect, then all the studies would conclude just that... People respond to incentives, and Liars respond even more; When you subsidize something, you get more of it.

Gore, Clintons, and soon, the Obama's parlayed HGCC into money and power. Billions, even trillions under the climate schemes is to be transferred to the third world from the developed nations.
It is nothing more than wealth redistribution from the producer class to the recipient class. And those who make a career out of get grants, launder money and get to look like they "really care about the earth."
Its all about the NARATIVE, truth be damned!

Very good post. Wasn't it Gore who invented the Internet? He must be credible.

Whhile the World Wide Web was initially invented by one person, JCR Licklider, the genesis of the internet itself was a group effort by numerous individuals, sometimes working in concert, and other times independently. Al Gore cannot take credit for the inventing the internet.

A god bit of history re-writing there. Anyone can have an idea but unless you put it into practice it' hard to claim you "invented" it.
I have an idea for an intergalactic time warp space ship, that does not make me the inventor. Tim Berners-Lee is the name you're looking for.

One of the definitions of the word "invent" is "to think up" . You don't have to pound nails into something to invent it.

But the money never gets to the people who supposedly really need it. It's siphoned off to the distributors, the enviro movement which is really one giant employment agency and slush fund for its devotees.

Check out https://tthomas061.wordpres...

During the Minoan Warming Period, Vikings built stone dairy barns on Greenland

that held up to 50 cattle, abandoned and reoccuopied during the Roman and Medieval

Warming Periods....who you believe, thousands of dead Vikings or Climaclownologists ?

Difficult for the Vikings to build barns during the Minoan Warm Period. The Minoan WP began around 1400 BC and ended around 800 BC. The Viking age lasted from the 8th century AD to the 11th century AD. Just saying.

I think he's referring to Norse/Danes etc from 2000 years earlier; but I get his point.

There is no archaeological evidence of European settlement in Greenland until the 10th century AD.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is none.

Typical democratic ploy.

You mean governments [ plural ] , since all 196 countries [with their own scientists ] on the globe believe the science is settled and the only question is will we move fast enough to prevent the worst climate change effects.
Speaking of incentives , don't fossil fuel industries have plenty of incentives..... to protect their investments ?

No one, and I mean no one, believes that any science is "settled". Science:
Is not based on consensus
Follows the scientific method which means hypothesis and testing. A hypothesis can never be proved correct, but one experiment can prove if wrong.

As for moving fast enough to prevent the worst of climate change you need to go back to the science.
Climate change is based on a hypothesis put forth in the form of climate models. Those models have been proven to be incorrect based on actual temperature records.

I'm weary of the attacks on fossil fuel industries. The fact is that if they wanted the fossil fuel industry could write a check and own every renewable industry on the planet.

At 0.4% for solar, and less than 5% for wind, renewables are not a threat to anyone other than the taxpayers who have to outrageous sums for renewable subsidies.

According to your thinking , the hypothesis [ global warming ] can never be proved correct. Horseshit! By that criteria most of what we understand in science [ ex: evolution, quantum theory, gravity, etc ] are not to be acted on because we can't prove them. Of course, technology uses these " theories" every day.
Why do you people have such animosity toward the overwhelming scientific consensus from so many countries?
It is not just atmospheric temperature models , its surface temp., ocean temp. arctic ice volume shrinkage, accelerating glacial melting, [ look at the newest articles on Greenland's accelerating runoff ] , migration of plant, insects, and animals northward and to higher elevations, spreading of warm climate diseases northward, and to higher elevations ,changing migration patterns, pollen studies, ice core studies, and on and on.
Solar energy in the U.S. is at least one percent of supply; up from .01% in early 2000. Seven doubles ; a double in a little over every two years . If it continued at that rate, [ seven doubles in the next fifteen years ] it would be one hundred percent of our electricity supply. Of course that is not going to happen but thirty to forty percent is possible ,even likely. This is called the Kurzweil theory that basically said when you reach one percent penetration of a market or complex problem from close to zero , you were half way to 100% of the market or solving a problem. Kurzweil made that claim when only one % of the human genome was analyzed half way through the study and most others were gloomy of success. He was right.

I take it you have never taken a science class.

The scientific method is the principle foundation of science.

I did not say that we don't act on a hypothesis but that was not the question. You said the science was settled, I said science is never "settled".

You keep saying "consensus" and I keep saying that science is not something we vote on.

The Antarctic is gaining ice. The GRACE satellites were incorrect.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature...

How many years have we been told that the Antarctic was losing ice? That was the "consensus" for more than a decade, except thru experimentation it was demonstrated to be incorrect.

The Arctic did show dramatic decreases in ice, as it has done before, and now it is rebounding. If it's all because of CO2 why has it happened before? MWP.

Greenland? The place that Vikings grazed sheep and farmed during the MWP? Glaciers have been melting for thousands of years.

The oceans are warming? Really?

ARGO-Era Vertical Mean Ocean Temperature Anomalies
NODC (0-2000 meters)
2003 - 2014
Indian Ocean Trend = +0.067 Deg C/Decade
South Atlantic Trend = +0.061 Deg C/Decade
North Atlantic Trend = +0.007 Deg C/Decade
Pacific Trend = +0.009 Deg C/Decade

The Kurzweil theory does not apply to anything that is subsidized by the taxpayers to the extent that solar is. Take away the subsidies and solar goes away. Why do you think Solar City is withdrawing from Nevada? And all they are losing is net metering. Solar only works if a small number of people are using it and a large number of people are paying for it. It is an intermittent source. No practical means of storage. So something has to provide the solar users, solar panel manufactures and the rest with dependable power when the sun doesn't shine. This isn't hard, its basic science and economics.

There IS consensus in science. I don't think you can name a field where everyone agrees yet we still use the consensus opinion in the real world. Also, some theories take decades before most [ but not all ] controversy is settled;ex: tectonic plate theory took more than 50 years before it was mostly accepted. Although settled science is not an accurate term , it implies that most of the scientific community is in general agreement [consensus ] and working with those postulations is reasonable ,even essential.
Antarctica is gaining ice in some areas; probably due to increased moisture in the air over the Antarctic Ocean as explained in some climate warming models; but the key factor is the stability of ice is going in the wrong direction.
You fail economics 101. Solar like digital cameras, like cell phones, like home computers were initially expensive . But the price dropped [ Moore;s Law ] until at some point the complete penetration of the market was, seemingly, over night . When solar is 10% [ without subsidies ] below the price of fossil fuels on a levelized basis , which will happen within three years , the change over will be as dramatic.

Who used the phrase, "since all 196 countries [with their own scientists ] on the globe believe the science is settled..."?

YOU DID and it is incorrect. Science is never settled.

We are not talking about digital cameras, cell phones etc. and no, Moore's Law does not apply to economics, it states; "Moore's Law is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years.

Who failed economics?
The only reason we have renewables other than the isolated cases where they make sense is:
Direct taxpayer subsidies.
Net metering.
Grid preference, utilities MUST purchase the electricity whether they need it or not.
State laws mandating their use.

Per BTU we subsidize renewables at twenty-five times the rate of fossil. Twenty-five times. We can't sustain that level of subsidies for a technology that is providing less than 5% of our energy matrix. Economics aside, the technology itself is the limiting factor in its expansion. It is intermittent. Large scale storage does not exist. This makes it a dead end in the pursuit of reducing GHG emissions.

Well stated old goat!

That is exactly right. This isn't about truth or facts...it's about CONTROL!

Every single one of you are really stupid. I hope you don't have kids.

Too late, mate.

IS, not are.

He's refering to a group, "are" is correct.

no he used singular verbiage every "one" of you... is is correct

No, 'are' is not correct. Collective nouns are considered singular, and a collective noun is considered singular.

"Every single one of you is"- he is addressing us in the singular. If he had said "You are all idiots", or some such, he would then be right. And its "referring".

we do and our kids will be the ones kicking your kid's ass at school for touting bs like AGW....

I like the word fraud better.

Get you some of THAT, alarmists!! Nice post.

Ta!

And here is a PERFECT example of what you are saying. These people are not only con-artists and frauds, they are complete lunatics!

This is well worth the time to read to give you an idea of just what we are dealing with when it comes to the AGW lunatics.

Global Warmists Angry Half The Earth Isn’t Covered In Ice
http://www.climatechangedis...

i disagree that - 2015 was not the hottest year evah - save It was:-
"The hottest year evah - for the worlds 'alarmists' - who collectively spoke more "HOT AIR" than evah evah before."

Yes, that's exactly what it is. Well said.

Beautifully put, OG.
You are a star.
.

Do get a grip on your irrelevant outbursts.

Keep in mind that this is and always has been a political and financial scam

Chock full of out-of-work communists from former Soviet bloc among others.

It's interesting that a major member of the old 'Soviet Bloc' doesn't believe it, either...

Obama hasn't offered them enough money yet. They'll come around once they hear an offer they can't refuse...

And it's a substitute religion for semi-educated white, middle-class people who no longer beieve in Christianity, but still need something to believe in.

No, it's science.

The MWP and the record high temperatures of the 1930's have both been erased via data manipulation. There is undeniable proof that both happened. Is this what you call science?

to be fair, yes. it probably is what he calls science. modern education is woeful

maybe if you up voted yourself...you'd have one up vote

Despite the evidence presented in this very article? Or have you researched it and found it to be false?