I guess that’s the boon and the curse of the real research on “climate change”–that there’s just so much evidence against it, you can’t summarize it in a few sentences. And unfortunately, far too many people are perfectly willing to listen to Al Gore and his type without questioning the basic tenets.

I usually boil it down to something similar to what Sam said: When the computer models can tell me what the weather will do Saturday, then we can talk about whether they can predict weather decades in the future.

Here’s a thought. Each year, the Oxford English Dictionary makes a big show of the “new words” added to the English lexicon. I suggest we contribute “algore-ithm,” defined as just like a regular algorithm, but based on a faulty premise. Any takers?

Senator Inhofe is right in a way that one wins the debate over climate with the economics of it. But what keeps the Democrats’ collective foot in the American door is a lack of a complete refutation of climate change. It doesn’t help that junk science has used data interpolation, and

Right now, the doubt associated with the TRILLIONS IN COST of chasing down something that may not exist, is much more effective an argument against the CERITITUDE of AGW proponents, than an incomplete scientific argument.

Stop the bad legislation now, and gather the necessary science to close the door on the foot of the Democrats forever.

In any case, I still fail to understand why it is we should allow other countries or legislative bodies to make decisions on our behalf, why we should submit one iota of our sovereignty. America should, and shall, do what’s right by the environment and by her people. But we will make those decisions, not others.
____________________________________

I’m also curious to know that if China were to actually fire up their new coal plants, would they collapse in place from slipshod construction. I have no doubt in my mind now that these one-per-week construction sites were built with a view to put their thumbs on the scale, so when they shut them down, they get a bigger piece of the pie for contributing to the reduction of emissions. I guess you could say the Chinese are clever in a way for exploiting loopholes in the system. I’d go further and say that the system should be torn down, utterly. Let the Chinese eat their own funds up trying to take over the planet rather than enjoying a European subsidy.
____________________________________

I agree with Skanderbeg and Lord Monckton about the increasing absurdity of the AGW argument. It’s enjoyable for me to shoot such weak arguments down. But I don’t think that taking an absurdist point of view on the subject will turn a lot more heads. Too many groups are going to get a huge handout from the government, now including Blue Dog Democrats in middle of the country. I fear the cap-and-trade legislation will pass, now.

That doesn’t change the need for people who doubt to put their doubts into a comprehensive understanding of the biosphere. I still think that’s going to be the only way to deliver a decisive blow to one of the most dangerous movements in the history of Mankind.

First, scientists should demonstrate their unbiased interest in AGW by rejecting government funding for the science, especially that funding that presumes global warming. Next scientists should sit down and agree that work should fall within established physical law. (If you’re claiming that CO2 is absorbing infrared light, you should also know that it re-emits that energy in photons of other wavelengths, or distributes its captured energy to oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere. Water should be included in the correct proportion. Clouds should form and dissipate. Each fact should be written and assembled together to create a good climate model. Next, we should all require that the models are truly predictive 72 hours into the future, before we expect them to be used for the next 72 years. This is no small feat, but since we haven’t even come close to such a feat, it begs the question as to why we believe the earth is warming, much less as a result of our activity.
____________________________________

Never forget that the AGW movement –in whatever name is take on to hide its identity– simultaneously justifies the formation of a collective more important than the individual, a false economy, punitive taxation, government oversight a Communist could only dream about, a Luddite society, and a Utopian view of the planet. It requires that we Americans pay for our new shackles, and demands that we put them on ourselves. In other words, we will be North Korea, only with fatter children (for now).

All based on an approach to a unsubstantiated, much less the unquantified claim, that Humanity must be controlled by a few politicians or else Humanity will die. Always tomorrow, sometimes even yesterday, not eventually or later.

Any politician that embraces this conclusion, or even the means used to attain these ends, is a criminal, and should be circulated out of the government for failing to uphold their oath of office, and prosecuted for it.