Climate Justice: It’s Only Getting Stronger

The weird thing is CO2 has been rising since the 1700's, and took a sharp upswing in the mid 1800's, long before man was emitting much of the stuff. Now we have flat temperatures for going on two decades while CO2 continues its climb upwards. How bizarre that so many claim the science to be settled. Just goes to show how politicized the issue has become. It still has legs despite these glaring inconsistencies. Limbo

a few related notes:

Global Warming theory has failed all tests, so alarmists return to the ‘97% consensus’ hoax - June 2013 http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/05/global-warming-theory-has-failed-all-tests-so-alarmists-return-to-the-97-consensus-hoax/ The myth of the 97% climate change consensus- May 2014 Excerpt: the papers used to create and perpetuate the 97% claim are seriously and fundamentally flawed. The alleged consensus simply does not exist; much less does it represent anything remotely approaching 97%. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/the-myth-of-the-97-climate-change-consensus/

Moreover, appealling to consensus science is a 'refuge of scoundrels' as far as real science is concerned

'Aliens Cause Global Warming' - Nov 2008 Excerpt: "I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. Let's be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” (From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology on Jan. 17, 2003) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122603134258207975.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

Here is a expert who, with hard science, severely questions the consensus science behind AGW, and even reveals that much evidence has been 'invented' by the AGW scientists:

Dr. Don Easterbrook Exposes Climate Change Hoax - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI video - In no ordinary presentation, Dr. Easterbrook (Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University) bombards the committee with an overwhelming arsenal of data and observations contrary to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. As the Internet jargon goes, this is a "must see."

If you don't believe, as was indicated in the last video, that Alarmists could be so low as to 'invent data', (i.e. lie), to support their position, well, there was the infamous Hockey Stick incident a few years ago in which evidence was blatantly manipulated by Alarmists to support their position,,,

Climategate 'hide the decline' explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

Of humorous note from last winter, when some AGW activists decided to leave their coffee shops to prove Global Warming in the Antartic:

Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice - Dec. 30, 2013 http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/global-warming-expedition-to-prove-antarctic-ice-is-melting-trapped-by-ice/

:) Thus it is apparent, as was pointed out this weekend in an excellently written article, Global Warming is not now, now has ever been, about the science, but is primarily driven by the politics behind it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Metaphysical Dilemma of the Left - Sept. 2014 Excerpt: In the first go-around, these anti-capitalists (the left) tried to capture the science of economics, forming theories about how capitalism is a system of exploitation that will impoverish the common man, while scientific central planning would provide abundance for all. Let’s just say that this didn’t work out. When it turned out that central planning impoverishes the common man and capitalism provides abundance for all, they had to switch to a fallback position. Which is: to heck with prosperity—too many material goods are the problem. Our greed for more is destroying the planet by causing environmental catastrophes. This shift became official some time in the 1960s with the rise of the New Left. Some of the catastrophes didn’t pan out (overpopulation, global cooling) and others proved too small to be anything more than a speed bump in the path of capitalism (banning CFCs and DDT). But then along comes global warming—and it’s just too good not to be true. It tells us that capitalism is not just exploiting the workers or causing inequality or deadening our souls with crass materialism. It’s destroying the very planet itself. http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/19/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-metaphysical-dilemma-of-the-left/

bornagain77