The Sound Of Settled Science

Many people have tried to create a false dichotomy of deniers versus climate scientists.

But full blown deniers are scarce. Many contrarians such as Anthony Watts would fit comfortably within the "97%", making that number rather meaningless (although still useful for propaganda).

The real debate, the one worth having, is over the degree of climate sensitivity. In the next hundred years is global temperature going to increase by 1 C? 2? 5? Are sea levels going to rise by .5 m? 2? 5?

Climate alarmists paper over the sensitivity debate, forever ranting on about deniers. It appears to be a way of distracting from the growing suspicion that the more cataclysmic predictions are unlikely to happen, and maybe we don't have to jettison capitalism after all.

Naomi Klein will be disappointed.

Taking the ism out of alarm one study at a time.

You won't see this covered by the CBC, CTV, Global, Star, Globe, etc.

These 'news organizations' have not told the public that there has been no measured global surface warming for eighteen years, that the Antarctic ice extent just set an all time satellite era record, the Arctic ice extent has rebounded by 49% for the second straight year since the 2012 low, that a brand new all-time record is set daily for no major hurricane landfall in the U.S., etc., etc.

ALL of these events were not predicted by the IPCC who admit that the vast majority of their climate models have failed.

You'll get pictures of Jack Layton's 'massage' before honest coverage of climate issues.

"Our paper is not an outlier."

No shit Sherlock. An outlier would be a paper pointing out that CO2 levels are NOT a driver of climate change, but rather ...an effect.

Translation:
'Unlike idiot know nothing Globull Warming climate whores, their crony capitalist sugar daddies,
and the marxist "poverty for thee but not for me" meme of corrupt politicians, we do real science".

Maybe the era of fossil fuels is coming to an end not by command of the fascist/socialist conjoined twins, but by the power of markets and freedom.

What would we argue about?

Warmistas should hang their heads in shame.

What's becoming clear about "settled science" is that CO2 sensitivity/feedback/whatever was always, as now scientifically established, was nowhere near the frankentemperatures of their models, which assume, now clearly repudiated, that climate science has anywhere near the precision or integrity to make such predictions.

I any event, the "scientism" (my new favourite term) will always ignore contrary evidence and massively exaggerate/invent anything that remotely demonstrates any case whatsoever for AGW.

When temperatures rise, sea levels tend to rise. So what, it doesn't means human activity is responsible. Lots of other things happen when temperatures rise. Again so what? How do the warmists explain the warming that took place up to 1950 or so which abated before warming resumed from 1970 until 2000. Industrialization could not have cause both warming events, so how can they argue it caused the latter? They can't, so they discount/ignore it, along with any warming causes other than those caused by human activity.

Showing "leadership" by shutting down transportation and energy industries (50% of Cdn GDP) will not cause China and India to change anything - the won't suddenly change their policies - except maybe to produce more wind turbines to sell to the gullible watermelon west. Sending $100billion a year to China will not cause them to produce the miracle energy technology - except of course to build more nuclear power plants perhaps,

It's time to end this watermelon pipe dream that if west de-industrializes, then China, or any other country will follow; no they won't and I don't blame them a bit - I do blame the watermelons and rent seekers for foisting this fantasy under the guise of saving the earth. If they actually cared about the environment they would talk about actual pollution rather than made up CO2 emissions "pollution."

Any politician who proposes any carbon policy, whether it be taxes or pricing or credits, is dead on arrival to the electorate.

Go Dr. Curry!

If you really want to see some glow-bull warming heads explode just mention the Libby/Pandolfi theory.