How anyone who has done some research of their own can still believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is beyond me, especially when all the evidence is in computer models and doesn’t exist in the real world.

Let’s see, remember

1. The hot spot in the tropause was in the computer models about 10 to 12 kilometres above the surface, radiosonde instrumentation sent up in weather balloons failed to find this hot spot, it only existed on the computer models, but hold on they found an excuse for that it went like this,

2. OH but the heat has been absorbed by the oceans, they should have checked first because since 2002 we have had the argo system monitoring the oceans they go down to a depth of 2000 metres, they never picked up this latent heat, so then the alarmists said but it went down to the deepest part of the ocean, still the argo would have picked it up, yes.

3. The hiatus – why hasn’t it warmed up in accordance with what the computer models had shown.

a. Computer models show an increase up to 2.78°C by end of this century, predicted in 1990 that means in the last 28 years we should have warmed to a specific point which we haven’t.

b. Empirical observations for the last 28 years estimate not even  a 1°C increase in temperature by end of this century, do you still think we should spend billions and give our money up to the UN and wall street, we don’t need to do anything and the increase in temperature will remain under 1°C. So what does that tell us that the theory/hypothesis is wrong because it doesn’t agree with observations.

4. The attitude of scientists in the alarmists camp, here are our findings now sit down, shut up and don’t you dare dispute what we’re telling you….!!!....Sorry today we still have people still trying to prove Newton and Einstein wrong, once you submit a paper its up for scrutiny 24/7 year round. What about John Cook over at the sceptical science blog forging his paper that 97% of scientists agree that AGW is real

5. I could go on and on like for example climate gate, scientists in the alarmist camp trying to SCARE average people into following this cult, it’s in their emails people FFS WTFU.

6. All the devastating predictions and critical moments in time that have come and gone and yet our panacea hasn’t been established we have been doomed to destruction many times over, past the point of no return many times over and yet here we are.

7. The Earth will destroy us the panacea to this destruction is a multibillion dollar market on the stock exchange where your average Joe and Jacinta pay for the free air above their heads to the oligarchy, it was the oligarchies idea you know, Anthropogenic Global Warming, money for jam that’s the way they like it OH let’s not forget their mouth piece and enforcer the UN they too will get a commission of sorts.

8. Why did Peter Mann hide the Medieval warm period (MWP) and little ice age (LIA) with his hockey stick, pre 2000 the IPCC had shown this graph for 10 years in its papers, then without a word it was replaced with Peter Man’s hockey stick which shows no MWP or LIA.

9. Why don’t the alarmist camps every tell people that we have had atmospheric CO2 levels up to 7000ppm in our history compared to today’s 410ppm and guess what life thrived here on Earth at 7000ppm, they only show you a certain scale which makes it seem as though CO2 and temperature correlate, in reality there is no correlation and when you view historical documents showing CO2 and temperature you quickly come to realise that CO2 while it does have a logarithmic effect on our temperature certainly doesn’t control it.

10. There are so many things the alarmists have done to scare people into action no quicker way to create a foot soldier than for the environment, what about the fact that they have tampered with past temperature readings, or that current thermometers are in inappropriate places, just too many things to state, yet the sheep keep on baaing.

Climate change has been with us since day dot and will be with us until the Earth is no more.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax perpetrated by the oligarchy to financially enslave us all.

While in might be fun to get lost in the detail.

Let's not forget the history.

issuevoter wrote on Dec 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:


Where did he say it has NO effect?

Perhaps you can point to catastrophes that have been visited upon us; caused by AGW.

Mcahel E Mann has been made to show his workings. That will be enlightening.

He says in part -

"But there are (at least) two other problems — Keith Briffa points out that the very strong trend in the 20th century calibration period accounts for much of the success of our calibration and makes it unlikely that we would be able be able to reconstruct such an extraordinary period as the 1990s with much success (I may be mis-quoting him somewhat, but that is the general thrust of his criticism). Indeed, in the verification period, the biggest “miss” was an apparently very warm year in the late 19th century that we did not get right at all. This makes criticisms of the “antis” difficult to respond to (they have not yet risen to this level of sophistication, but they are “on the scent”)."

In 1818 (200 years ago) we were in the depths of the LIA.

and of course heavily polluted air in our cities r just a natural occurrence and nothing to do with us Humans...….
Nothing to see here just carry on...…..

issuevoter wrote on Dec 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm:


Of course we have an effect I never said otherwise, but it's no where near what is being promulgated.

Earth's temperature has been increasing since the little ice age, but of course you must have missed that because of the hockey stick.

The effects of CO2 on our temperature are logarithmic and after a certain point the effects of CO2 diminish.

1. The logarithmic effect of CO2



2. CO2 Emissions

Compared to natural CO2 emissions mans emissions of CO2 are just too small to register.

Notice the sharp rise in fossil fuel CO2 emissions after 2000.

After 2000 fossil fuel emissions were 3 times the amount of fossil fuel emissions in the prior decade to 2000, that is 3 times as much fossil fuel emission went into our atmosphere after 2000 than the decade before 2000.

But the average yearly increase after 2000 just like the decade prior to 2000, average increase in CO2 remains more or less steady at 2.1ppm per year.

Fossil fuel CO2 emissions at 2.3% of the total CO2 natural emissions are insignificant and get lost in the noise.

That's why the average yearly increase of CO2 has remained steady at 2.1ppm per year even though fossil fuel emissions have shot through the roof.

Yes fossil fuels emissions contribute but the contribution is small at 2.3% of the total amount of natural CO2 that is emitted.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 6:36am:


Yes us humans have an effect where have I said otherwise.

COX, SOX, NOX and soot are all pollutants and we should clean them up asap.

But CO2 is not a pollutant......!!!

You know those bubbles in you soft drink and beer they are CO2...!!!

Do we drink pollution......???

CO2 = plant food, eg. CO2 greenhouses....!

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:45am:


If the Earth could absorb 7000ppm why should there be a problem with 410ppm.

Ajax wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:45am:


emotive semantics
Too much of anything is a pollutant.
Too little CO₂ and we would freeze
As with anything it is all about dosage.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2018 at 10:48am:


Too much oxygen is also a pollutant....!!!

Today we have some of the lowest ever amounts of atmospheric CO2 in recorded history.

The Earth has been warming since the LIA its only natural for natural CO2 emissions to increase.