Dear Climate Alarmists – We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.


Originally published 7 February, 2017, given that as another Australian summer approaches we are about to hit peak climate alarmist silly season, it is time for an encore.

It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?

I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.

But money talks and bullshit walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.

The usual platitudes are being spoken, but actions speak louder than words. Courtesy of Maggies Farm, here are a couple of articles that caught my attention. The first is from the Manhattan Contrarian who observes that climate alarmism doesn’t seem to be working any more. Governments are beginning to invest mightily in coal-fired power stations, of all things. Who would have ever believed it? Meanwhile the dismal climate science is rocked by yet another scandal as employees and insiders, who previously refused to speak out for fear of the consequences, are now beginning to find their voices once again. They know which way the wind is blowing and the wind has begun to shift.

But here’s the thing. Once this all unravels, and it will unravel very quickly as soon as the money stops flowing, those of us on the side that is ludicrously described as being “deniers” are not going to forget. We are not going to let you bastards off the hook. We remember what has been said and written about us. We don’t even need to remember – the internet is forever. You’re not going to shrug off this one as just another Y2K. And you’re certainly not going to quietly move on to your next charade of choice that you’ll ram down our throats and wallets with your usual religious fervour.

Because the climate scam was too big. You pushed all of your chips into the centre of the table and said, “all in,” with a smug stare at us sitting on the other side of the felt. And you busted out. Not only have you busted out, but you don’t have any more chips to play. We’re not going to let you have any. From now on, every time you come up with some pathetic attempt to control populations through a fear-based con we will remind everyone of climate change. Every time governments attempt to hijack science to support a political agenda, we will bring up that old climate change bugbear. You are going to be shoved into the corner as the crazy bearded freak standing on the side of the road with his sign proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. We aren’t going to listen to you any more. You have proven yourselves too stupid or untrustworthy to participate in public discourse.

And that goes for those in my social circle as well. You know who you are. You’re the ones that have been parroting the climate change line like blind simpletons for the past ten years. A decade of listening to you idiots chant on and on about “the science!” when you wouldn’t know science if it slapped you across the face with a Bunsen burner. A decade of watching you drive around with a “no more oil” sticker on your car bumper. I mean, how much more clueless do you have to be?

A decade of you retarded monkeys claiming that plant food is a pollutant. Years of you driving electric cars that only exist due to the biggest taxpayer subsidy in history, while you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they need to be plugged into an electric power grid. Decades of you opposing nuclear power, which if any of your bogus claims were true would be the immediate answer if mankind truly were in some kind of climate peril. Decades of you pontificating at how the sea levels are going to rise while you buy palatial beach-front homes, and you then have the gall to sue local councils for sea erosion after you participated in demonstrations to stop them building a sea wall.

Years of you advocating for corn to be turned into bio fuel while there are still people in the world with not enough food to eat. Morons who buy solar panels with taxpayer subsidies and then put them on the side of the roof facing the street which signals your virtuousness but fails to get any sunlight. Years of you actually believing that there is such a thing called renewable energy, and every time some country manages to get some above-average power from them due to a fortuitous combination of weather events, you scream it from the top of your lungs that this is incontrovertible proof that the entire world will soon be run on wave farms. Eleven years of you quoting total shit from An Inconvenient Truth.

Years of governments investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in renewable scams so that they were forced to parrot the official line, otherwise their foolish investments would be at risk. Boy, that chicken is coming home to roost. Years of listening to cretins living on tiny island nations, who have completely mismanaged their delicate ecosystems but now want to blame it all on rich countries and guilt trip us into bailing them out. Years and years of a concerted attempt by the UN and other globalist organizations to subvert and destroy capitalism by using the climate scam as a proxy, while listening to people in your social circles whose entire lives and standard of living depend entirely on the capitalist model, go along with the scam like lemmings following each other off a cliff.

And you lot had the nerve to label the very few of us who stood up to this rubbish and tried to protect the very system which you so mindlessly enjoy as being climate deniers?

You can all go fuck yourselves. We will not forget. We will remind you for the rest of our lives. We will write the histories. You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity. But at least you’ll still have that free market capitalist model to enjoy which you so badly wanted to throw in the recycling bin.

You’re welcome.

This article was originally published at, where Adam Piggott publishes regularly and brilliantly. You can purchase Adam’s books here.

Photo by Gerald Simmons

  • Dan Flynn

    Hi Adam, I hope you’re right, I really do. I would like our species to be able to live on planet earth. I’d be happy to have egg on my face for eternity if it meant my kids are able to grow up on a healthy planet.
    On the other hand, if you are wrong and all those scientists are right, we’re all completely and utterly fucked.

    • Deplorable Steve

      How so Dan? Warmists have always looked on in fear of doom and disaster, but what if it were beneficial? We are never exposed to that side of the argument…

      • Dan Flynn

        Hi Steve, not sure if I understand your query correctly, but all I’m saying is that if certain scientists (97% of them) are right about man made climate change then we have a lot to worry about i.e. Rising seas levels, food insecurity, massively more human migration, global chaos etc.
        If Adam is right and climate change is all bullshit then, well, that’s good because my kids and grandchildren will be OK and I’ll be happy to be wrong. If it’s beneficial then great.
        Adam seems to relate to climate change on a very personal level. He seems very angry that so many people give him shit about it. I’m more interested in humans being able to live on planet earth successfully.
        We need to remember that the biggest climate deniers are not people like Adam, but oil, coal and gas companies who have the most to lose from policies that address climate change. Cheers

        • Larry Larkin

          When a book called “100 Scientists Against Einstein” was published and he was asked what he felt about that, he shrugged and said that only one had to be right.

          As for the 97% garbage, it is just that, garbage. Anybody who has gone to the lengths to promote their position that the warmenistas have, when all they needed to do was produce honest, accurate science to do so, are scammers, nothing more, nothing less.

          • Otipua08

            Scammers?, and their motivation is?

          • jervis121

            Their motivation is MONEY what a stupid question!

          • Otipua08

            Of course. And the fossil fuel industry are motivated by generousity. 🙂

          • Gravedigger

            Moving out of moms house.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Larry,

            Are you saying that 97% of the world’s scientists are scammers? Or are you saying that it’s not true that 97% of scientists believe we have cause for concern about climate change?

            Larry, when did we lose faith in science? If you want to know if it’s going to rain on Friday do you look to the sky and figure it out for yourself? Or do you check with the Bureau of Meteorology? Why would we trust them to tell us about the weather but then not trust them when they say climate change is a thing. It makes no sense to me.

            Sure, the whole climate change discourse has become really messed up and there are forces at work that try hard to muddy the waters i.e. oil and coal companies and their ‘think tanks’ like the IPA.

            I’m not saying that the IPCC isn’t corrupt or that Al Gore isn’t a wanker or that some climate models are imperfect, these things may be true but this is NOT evidence that climate change is a scam.

            Climate Science has been around for many years and it was initiated by concerned scientists”

            Do you think we should just send a bunch of pollution into the sky and not worry that it might be doing some harm? Should we go back to pouring battery acid back into the rivers? No of course we shouldn’t, because the people who told us to stop doing that are the same people who tell us that we need to reduce carbon emissions.
            This is simple Larry, there is SO MUCH at stake here and we can’t afford to just pass the whole thing off as a ‘scam’.

          • Biologyteacher100

            Scientist try very hard to get it right. Their reputations depend on being confirmed by new evidence and new data. As someone who has had a long career as a scientist, have to say that the climate science evidence is very solid. Even the conservatives accepted the climate science evidence until about 10 years ago when they jumped off the cliff into science denial.

          • Dan Flynn

            Thanks BT100, good to know 🙂

          • jervis121

            Oh dear, not YOU again.. Long time no see… A long career as a junk-science scaremonger you mean. CAGW is a SCAM, so SHUT the f*** UP! You’re a fool. If you want to live in a clean green utopia to save the planet from those dirty, worthless humans that you and your Socialist cohorts consider a ‘cancer’ to the precious planet, on the basis of a global SCAM go ahead, but sorry we won’t be joining you – we’re not interested.
            I bet you still use electricity, drive a car powered by petrol etc. etc… If you were true to your word Mr CAGW Brain-washer, you would do none of those things, because those are some of the activities your misanthropic Socialist mentors in the UN are telling us ordinary people we must NOT do… Yes, one of your most redeeming features is your trademark leftist hypocrisy.
            Read more about your horrid little ‘master plan for humanity’ here:
            But sorry Alarmists and communist scammers, it isn’t going to happen.
            We’re not THAT stupid! We are not going to sit back like a bunch of stunned mullets and watch you loonies destroy our civilisation. Communism is dead. So too is your SCAM, now GET LOST!

          • Gravedigger

            Yeh, just like Tim Flannery, as a teacher you should be able to explain why it’s taught( pushed) with no dissent allowed, in humanities, English, science at my kids school then. Even the UN admits it’s a mechanism to effect and change capitalism, settled science BULLSHIT.

          • what jervis 121 says below……GET LOST

          • Jan Lindström

            What evidence? Warming? That is not evidence per se. You have to show that the warming is outside the natural envelope. That is not possible using first principle physics. Only in models, where you assume a 90-95% attribution to anthropogenic forcings. The same models, showing a warming rate 2x the observed, omitting the Hiatus and unable to explain the 1910-1940 warming. Building a policy on models? That is a dangerous joke.

          • entropy

            I wouldn’t call a biology teacher a ‘scientist’ but talk yourself up if you feel it lends weight to your non-existent argument.

            Since 10 years represents about one tenth of all the reliable climate data we have, that’s more than enough time to alter one’s opinion based on the latest information.

          • Keith

            The 97% Scientist thing is a complete fiddle!

            We have not lost face in Science but Science is not what many Alarmist Scientists practice. (The NOAA data manipulation exposed in the last couple of days. Climate gate, hockey stick … need I go on!)

            NONE of the UN models came even remotely close to the reality of the pause over the past 20 odd years. The hypothesis of CAGW has been debunked at a 97% confidence level!

            Alarmism is more of a religion than any adherence to the Scientific process. Ensuring ongoing taxpayer funding for their salaries is a keen motivator for then to alarm whenever they can.

            Big oil, Big coal – yeh, they’re the real baddies!

            With all respect, Dann – You need to do a bit more research into this scam.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith,
            That link didn’t work, I’m aware of the blog ‘What’s up with that’ though, it’s well known. I’ve done plenty of research and, in my experience, you can find a blog to support just about any view.

            With regard to the 97% thing, sure it may be less than that but the important thing is that it’s a ‘majority’ of scientists who think we have cause for concern around climate change.

            ‘Big oil, Big coal – yeh, they’re the real baddies!’

            I’m interested to know why you would not consider this seriously? Do you think that corporations don’t have input into our political system? Or that companies like Exxon Mobile, who have a shit load to lose from climate change policies, are actively funding and supporting climate denial?



            Think about motivation Keith, it’s the key to understanding most things. What could possibly motivate Big Oil and Big Coal to oppose climate change science? It’s very obvious, if the world moved over to clean energy they would all be screwed. Simple. So of course they are trying to fight it and they are working hard to muddy the waters and confuse good folks like us.
            Like I said in a previous post, I’m not doubting that the NOAA, IPCC, Al Gore or whoever are prone to corruption – there are liars and scammers on all sides. However this CANNOT be used to undermine the whole idea of man made climate change and the fact that we are playing with our children and grandchildren’s future. Much is at stake.
            With respect,

          • Keith

            Hi Dann
            Sorry about the original link:

            ‘…you can find a blog to support just about any view’ – I agree but I’m drawn to the ones where evidence, statistics and Mathematical reasoning are prominent and referenced to raw, and authoraitive datasets. A place where the evidence is the basis of argument and open to scruitiny and healthy counter argument. WattsUpWiththat is such a place. I’ve looked but I’m unable to find a similar site on the Alarmist viewpoint. Any links would be greatly appreciated!

            Another challenge for you about the ‘majority of Scientists’ – Your evidence? Further to appeals to Authority: Are you able to cite a few prominent Scientists who support CAGW? I can’t find any?

            I have a few that I would like you to match who are sceptics:

            Dr Will Happer (Professor Physics – Princeton)

            Freeman Dyson (Professor Physics and Mathematics – Princeton – Held Einstien’s position of Physics at this university)
            Willie Soon (Astrophysicist Harvard Smithsonian)
            Ivar Giaever (Physicist and Nobel Laureate for Physics)

            There are many many more:

            Care to match them? Just name one if you like! (Please don’t let it be Flannery,)

            As for the reference to Big oil being baddies;

            Exxon paid $2.3m to try and counteract alarmism (your link) – so what! This is trivial compared to the countless billions of dollars which is being syphoned off to feed the biggest scam in History. Worse still, Is that this money could be used to address real word issues such as poverty and disease. But no, we of the West are to busy virtue signaling our morally superior Green credentials!
            More power to Exxon (and there pals) if they are able to bring this madness to an end. ‘The Science is settled’ – What an absurdity!

            Finally, I very much contest your claim that there is much at stake by not trying to combat CAGW. For continuing poverty, real environmental issues … there is much at stake if we continue with this silliness!

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith,
            I have no doubt you’re doing your research and you have valid points.

            I get that you’re looking for discussion and rigorous debate and not just links to information websites, however these are interesting and informative. Can we really believe that all these organizations are totally corrupt scammers?




            This might be more of what you’re talking about:


            Name dropping climate change skeptics in interesting but not compelling Keith, they are but a few names in a massive global conversation.
            I’d be interested though, what do you consider to be real environmental issues? I think it’s great that you are not dismissive of all environmental concerns as many people are.
            ps: Exxon mobile are not global justice warriors, they are a corporation who caused one of the biggest natural disasters in history and their $2.3 million to promote climate change denial is the tip of the iceberg.

          • Keith

            Hi Dan,

            I must say that I’m enjoying the polite discourse/debate with you – I’m learning civility.

            That said, the links provided are more lazy/disingenuous vs scamming; Unfortunately, they are based on projections from models, most of which have been discredited, purely from a statistical confidence level edict. Mathematical modelling is fraught with dangers of extrapolation. The 91 UNCC models have now (all) failed 97% confidence levels (19 years). Therefore the hypothesis on which they were created is proven false.
            Not opinion but mathematical reality.

            Creating new models based on the same basic hypothesis seems to be more about religious/political zeal than scientific endeavour.

            Do not trust mathematical modelling extrapolations in complex multivariable simulations. The most complex UNPCC models incorporate 19 variables (Solar iradiation is not one of these – really!). The scientists that I listed in the previous post mock the idea that there are only 19 variables. It is more complex than this!
            That said – the data is in and the answer is not CO2

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith, it’s refreshing isn’t it? To talk respectfully with someone who has opposing views but is clearly not a dickhead? I can imagine us chatting away in a pub or cafe and getting along just fine.
            OK, so I get that you want a name, well here’s one, David Karoly. You probably know him as he works for the IPCC.

            The thing is Keith, I’m not doubting there are problems with climate models and that there hasn’t been issues with data storage etc. You have clearly taken an interest in the fine mathematical detail which is great, and I cannot say I have done the same. Now is this evidence that I am wrong and you are right? I don’t think so.

            ‘That said – the data is in and the answer is not CO2’

            So are you saying that because the scientists you mention ‘mock the data’, then let’s just shut up shop, close the IPCC, cancel all renewable energy targets and get to oil and coal and rest easy?

            What I’m getting at is this – Anthropogenic climate change was not dreamt up by the UN, it did not simply fall from the sky ten or twenty years ago. It was a grass roots movement from scientists who were concerned that the human race a problem. I tend to believe these people, just like I believe a doctor who tells me my headache might be caused by a brain tumour. This does not mean that I am blindly subscribing to a religion. People are flawed, some scientists and the UN employees are flawed. People make mistakes and things get complicated. This does not mean the CSIRO, NASA and Bureau of Meteorology are wrong.

            I would not sooner lose faith in climate science because of some problems with climate models than I would with democracy because of corrupt politicians.

          • Keith

            Hi Dan
            David Karoly has a Phd in Meterology from the Universtity of Reading. This is a seroius lightweight when compared to the likes of Happer and Dyson (Professors of atmospheric Physics/Mathematics – Harvard)

            As to the idea of what the Mathematics says:

            What I can tell you, unequivocally, (Mathematically) is that the UN models are ALL wrong (102 of them) and therefore the hypothesis (CAGW based on CO2) which they were based upon is shown to be false.

            It is a hard fact for warmist to come to grips with. That is when modelled temperatures are aligned with real world data over nearly 20 years.
            This is not my opinion against warmists it is Mathematics vs warmists and Maths, as always, is correct.

            The Mathematics clearly indicates that CO2 is not the primary driver of any warming that may have occurred either now, or in the past. There exist other more plausible explanations (Svensmarks cloud nucleation/cosmic ray hypothesis, amoung others . The data, when it comes in, may well falsify the hypothesis – It may not)
            The bottom line is that it’s not CO2. It is always going to be more complex than this!

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith, I’m not sure where you got that info on David Karoly, but the dude is (according to Melbourne Uni) a Professor of Atmospheric Science which is well above PHd level.


            I hear you about the maths and the UN climate models. It certainly is compelling.
            I’m sorry if I seem stubborn but there are many factors at play here, not just maths. Sure maths doesn’t ‘lie’ but maths is a tool used by humans and is not an end unto itself.
            I believe you are ignoring important elements here Keith, one of them being that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is essentially a theory, our ‘best guess’. Maths cannot always support a theory perfectly at any given time. We must relay on other sources of evidence, such as ‘field observation’.

            Science is built on a certain process. Scientists start with a hypothesis and gather evidence to support it. They publish their results and then other scientists try to disprove it or improve it. When a theory gets though this ‘vetting process’ it is considered a consensus. This does not mean there is a complete absence of doubt and that some scientist may not agree. There is an overwhelming consensus that AGW is something to worry about and that our reliance on coal and oil is part of that problem. The fact that NASA, CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology are on board with the AGW hypothesis surely tells us something.
            Is it foolproof? Has it been proven beyond reasonable doubt? Clearly not, but the signs are there. Recorded land and ocean temperatures have risen, extreme weather events are increasing – now I know you could dispute both those things individually but the point is they do support the AGW hypotheses and I believe we would be foolish as a species to ignore what could be an immanent threat to our ability to live on this planet.

            The other thing you appear to be ignoring Keith is that where does the bulk of climate change denial come from? I get that some scientists are involved but google the Heartland Institute. This ‘think tank’ which was known to be funded by Exxon and other corporations (they now no longer disclose their funding source) is an epicenter of climate change denial and guess who they used to advocate for? Tobacco companies. Yes that’s right, they were the ones who successfully muddied the waters when it came to challenging the links between smoking and cancer.
            Do some research into this organization. They specialize in proving nothing but are experts in casting doubt, creating confusion and muddying the waters. For what purpose? So that massive corporations who control the world can keep doing business as usual.

          • Keith

            Hi Dan,
            Again, I disagree. Mathematics is indeed an end to itself. It is the only true arbiter of evidence and hypothesis.
            I’m not at the least bit interested in who sponsors who or what might be ther motivation as this, along with Consensus Science, is opinion, a point of view, often tainted by political dispositions of individuals.
            There has been no statistically significant warming for the past 20 odd years. The homogenised data created by the BOM, CSIRO and NASA is simply brings considerable discredit to their reputation. FOI requests from Mathematicians for the raw data sets have been resisted, and we now know why. The data sets have been manipulated in a fashion which is statistically biased. The modelled data which is ‘calculated’ fom real world data moves in a fashion that certainly could not be attributed to random error!

            As to Professor Karoly. I was unaware that he had gained this position but it remains a fact that his Phd is in Meterology. Secondly, Atmospheric Science, Climate Science etc are recent areas of studies and should not be conflated with the work of Atmospheric Physicists, the latter being more attune with empirical analysis than the likes of Karoly, Flannery and Parchuri.

            I suspect that we will continue to disagree because of the way that we look at things. I’m very black and white and feel very comfortable with dismissing propositions simply from empirical evidence.

            Again, a good conversation – over a beer would make it better though.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith,
            I think you’re right about the way we look at things, I’m certainly more of a ‘grey’ kind of guy. Nice talking with you though and I’m going to research more on the maths angle and will hopefully be better prepared next time! Out of interest are you Melbourne based? Cheers

          • Keith

            Hi Dan,
            I’m intrigued with your query about being Melbourne based. I’m not but have an association with Uni of Melbourne (Mathematics – Education)
            I’m intrigued by the question! Maybe, when I’m next in Melbourne I can buy you a beer?

            Again, thanks for the polite discourse – you do the contrarian viewpoint a justice. Polite peer reviewed debate is all that we ask for – This is refreshing, thank you Dan!

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith,
            It would be a pleasure to catch up for a beer if you’re in town. Please do let me know. Aha so you’re really into maths! I’ll be sure to be ready with some peer reviewed material 🙂

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith, thought you might find this interesting. Written by a professor of Mathematics, now sadly deceased. It is five years old but well written and echoes my sentiments very succinctly:

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Keith, long time no hear, hope you well. I stumbled across this blog that addresses climate change denial in a very interesting and informative way. I hope you will read it and engage with it. Cheers Dan


          • Otipua08

            Watts is a joke! A really bad one!

          • Jan Lindström

            Solid and credible argument there. I am sure you convinced a lot of fence sitters…

          • Keith

            Thanks for sharing sharing your ignorance. Alternatively, your reasoned argument would be nice – you know someting not like ‘Otipua08 is a brain fart – a really, really bad one’ Oaf!

          • Jean

            It’s not 97% of the world’s scientists unless you mean the millions and millions of scientsts in all sciences like physics, chemistry, astronomy, computers, engineering, rocketry, medicine, archeology, quantum mechanics, aviation, robotics, and so on and on. Also, if a new prototype plane was on the tarmac wating for a first flight and 97% of engineers and pilots said it would fly but 3% said they doubted it would fly but crash, would you get on board for the flight?

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi jean, I get what your’e saying about the 97% thing. It’s probably less, but still the majority of climate scientists.
            I don’t think your analogy addresses the conundrum of climate change sufficiently. A better analogy would be – if you saw ten doctors and nine of them said your headaches were caused by a brain tumour and one of them said ‘don’t worry just take some aspirin’ what would you do?
            I appreciate your comment.

          • RedHotScot

            @Dan Flynn.

            Your 97% consensus is based on a few unscientific and questionable studies undertaken to prove the science is settled.

            And whilst alarmists and sceptics alike continually wage war over the causes of Climate Change there is one irrefutable fact most ignore; there is no credible, empirical evidence in the form of scientific research that demonstrates Co2 causes the climate to change. After 40 years, millions of scientific man hours and $Billions, there should be hundreds, if not thousands but there are none. There is, however, considerable evidence demonstrating increasing Co2 lags temperature by some 800 years.

            The risk to your children isn’t from Co2, it’s from reckless governments pursuing a cause railroaded through by the socialist green movement on the back of collective guilt. The problem is, by 2050 I believe, there will be $Trillions thrown at a non problem to reduce Co2 by 0.3%. The risk to your children is financial, not environmental.

            In the meantime a NASA satellite study on 30 years of data found the planet has greened by 14%; two continents the size of mainland USA worth of extra vegetation, 70% of it caused by increased atmospheric Co2.

            In the UK we are set to spend £300Bn by 2030, £19Bn per year, whilst our NHS is collapsing with annual debts running at £2.5Bn in 2016. So like the third world, the poor and sick are not only suffering fuel poverty from a proposed 15% increase in electricity prices by one of the big six producers this year, but our hospitals have queues of beds in corridors because they are starved of funds mis-directed to GW. The 6th richest nation in the world is heading for destitution because of scaremongering by the global socialist elite making $Bn’s from carbon trading and taxpayer funded, ineffective renewable energy.

            I truly hope your children aren’t targeted for population control measures by an overreaching UN global government.


          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Scot,
            You make very valid points. I’m not sure where you get all those numbers from (300 billion quid) but I understand the concern around the other important things that need funding, hospitals etc.

            ‘there is one irrefutable fact most ignore; there is no credible, empirical evidence in the form of scientific research that demonstrates Co2 causes the climate to change’

            OK Scot, now I get that this sounds compelling and causes us to think ‘shit maybe global warming is a hoax?’ However this ‘fact’ is extremely misleading, it has also been addressed many times by many scientists if you care to look:


            Like many scientific discoveries or theories, they are essentially based on ‘our best guess’, based on human interpretations of research, data etc. This is what scientists do, they have a hypothesis and try to prove it. When they do, they publish it and then others try to disprove it, if they can’t, it’s seen as a consensus. Now this doesn’t mean there won’t be some who might be skeptical, but show me climate scientist who has a definitive alternative theory on climate change that can be backed up with ’empirical evidence’. There ain’t none that I’m aware of. If you know someone please inform me.

            The majority of the scientists on this planet tell us we have something to worry about. Why do we choose to ignore them?

            Is it because some people in the IPCC have acted improperly? Or because some climate change bodies have tried to suppress different views? All this may well be happening but it does not prove man made climate change is not happening. Would we abandon democracy after proving that some politicians are corrupt?

            I find it interesting that you would send me a link from NASA- an organization who totally support action on anthropocentric climate change!
            I get your concerns Scot, and do not believe you are anything other than a concerned citizen with a good heart. The problem is there is a lot of misinformation out there and we need focus on the bigger risks. Wasted billions is a bad thing but human’s ability to live on planet earth is kind of important 🙂
            Good luck.

          • Otipua08

            You are too polite Dan. When you get “‘there is one irrefutable fact most ignore; there is no credible, empirical evidence in the form of scientific research that demonstrates Co2 causes the climate to change”, you know you are speaking to an individual impervious to fact! Your long post is wasted on him and his ilk. I’m sure he has no problem believing in chem trails!

          • Dan Flynn

            I’m a hopeless optimist 🙂

          • RedHotScot

            You only need show me the papers to shut me up. Easy.

          • Otipua08
          • RedHotScot

            An important bit conveniently missed from your link is that Tyndall

            “concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

            Funny that, another convenient omission by the alarmist community. As I said to another poster on here, it’s not what alarmist scientists say, it’s what they don’t say that concerns me.

            Amply illustrated by the Climategate fraud and Tom Karl et al.

          • Otipua08

            I see denierville is recycling the BS they tried to spin out of stolen correspondence all those years ago. I guess it’ s because of the fact free environment they live in, means it’s hard to actually come up with an original thought. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour can’t force warming by itself!

          • RedHotScot

            Phil Jones at CRU University of East Anglia:

            “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

            Phil Jones at CRU University of East Anglia to Michael Mann:

            “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

            Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research) to Michael Mann.

            “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate”

            Phil Jones at CRU University of East Anglia:

            “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” [Relative to the editor of Climate Research].

            Phil Jones to Michael Mann:

            “Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.” [Relative to FOI requests].

            I’ll give you that Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al can come up with some original thought, like manipulating data, withholding data, deleting data, contravening FOI regulations, fraud, and probably violating their contracts of employment.

            But that’s OK in the world of climate alarmism. Makes for uncomfortable reading doesn’t it?

            And still, there is no empirical studies that prove Co2 causes global temperature rise. And still the planet has greened by 14%. And still none of the climatic disasters predicted over the last 40 years have not come true.

            There are only so many times the general public can be mugged off by zealous alarmists before they eventually twig that somethings wrong. Hilariously, it’s already happened and none of you noticed. The world no longer cares, a UN online poll of nearly 10M people on 16 subjects found Climate Change came a pitiful last to internet access.

            But there’s still time to vote

          • Otipua08

            As I said BS! You think spinning conversations is proof of anything?Haven’t you got something more recent than 10 years ago? You are full of it. Even members of your Republican party and Exxon Mobil know Climate change is a fact and serious! What the F#ck are you trying to defend? Take responsibility for your actions instead of denying them, or are you just too bone idle?

          • RedHotScot

            Quoting a factual email conversation is hardly spin. It’s evidence of collusion to distort data.

            More recent than 10 years ago? OK, the case of Tom Karl et al. 2015 who rushed a paper out, betraying scientific expediency for political gain.

            I’m not a Republican, I’m British, but continue with your assumptions.

            Nor have I ever said climate change isn’t a fact. The climate is always changing.

            Nor is their any need to be defensively abusive. Although it’s one of the more offensive characteristics of climate alarmists, but it’s unnecessary and merely demonstrates frustration.

            I’m not inclined to present MSM articles as evidence of anything so I wont bother with your Washington Post article if you don’t mind. Whilst you accuse me of spin for presenting merely fact, the WP present spin as fact, as do many more MSM articles.

            If you care to continue this discussion, please do so, but in a more reasonable tone.

          • Otipua08

            With regard to accusation 1 “hide the decline!” “Mike’s Nature trick” refers to a technique (aka “trick of the trade”) used in a paper published in Nature by lead author Michael Mann (Mann 1998). The “trick” is the technique of plotting recent instrumental data along with the reconstructed data. This places recent global warming trends in the context of temperature changes over longer time scales.
            The most common misconception regarding this email is the assumption that “decline” refers to declining temperatures. It actually refers to a decline in the reliability of tree rings to reflect temperatures after 1960. This is known as the “divergence problem” where tree ring proxies diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. The divergence problem is discussed in the peer reviewed literature as early as 1995, suggesting a change in the sensitivity of tree growth to temperature in recent decades (Briffa 1998). It is also examined more recently in Wilmking 2008 which explores techniques in eliminating the divergence problem. So when you look at Phil Jone’s email in the context of the science discussed, it is not the schemings of a climate conspiracy but technical discussions of data handling techniques available in the peer reviewed literature. Spin what you can out of that. I suggest you look at what the science says.

          • Otipua08

            Accusation number 3 “Trenberth is actually discussing a paper he’d recently published that discusses the planet’s energy budget – how much net energy is flowing into our climate and where it’s going (Trenberth 2009).
            In Trenberth’s paper, he discusses how we know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide. Nevertheless, surface temperature sometimes shows short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can’t comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.”

          • Otipua08

            The other accusations are just rubbish and are in general a response to the ferreting around by powerful vested interests trying to discredit scientists and what the science actually says!

          • Otipua08

            “The climate is always changing.” A favourite with science denialists. It’s a step forward from “the climate is not changing” of a few years ago, as it’s pretty damn obvious it is changing. Now to move forward from the climate “has always changed” we have to agree, that because climate is an atmospheric response to the energy Earth receives from the sun, something in that energy budget must have changed. So we look at the data provided by solar astrophysicists. That data tells us that solar irradiance has in fact been declining slightly, while the global temperature trend has been increasing. So then the question is, if there isn’t more energy entering the system, something must have changed about how energy escapes the climate system. But what?

          • Deplorable Steve

            Dan knows how to debate with consideration for an opposing view. You just try to railroad your opinion with contempt for those who don’t share your belief…

          • Otipua08

            That would be lovely, if it were a debate. Instead we have scientific facts and hard evidence on one hand and on the other, those who lie and spin because of a misplaced sense of self entitlement, while giving the one finger to the rest of humanity!

          • Deplorable Steve

            ‘scientific facts’ Like leeches and thalidomide???

            My uncle worked in the Bureau of Meteorology for many years in the 70s and 80s and 90s and he had a certain reference point to measure the alleged sea level rises due to climate change. This reference point has not changed its level. Not one iota…

          • Otipua08
          • Keith

            Just a sad reflectiom of Maths Education in Australian schools. You post this as ??? Just sad!
            Causality, scale – Any idea of these concepts?!

          • Otipua08

            Sad reflection of Australian
            spelling also!

          • Otipua08

            Causality Thermal expansion, melting ice.

          • Keith

            Name one, just one, peer reviewed study which shows causal relationship with C02 and CAGWA, Just One!
            Waiting, waiting, waitng;;;;;;;;;
            Step up or step out!

          • Otipua08

            Don’t pretend you are interested in facts! Somewhere for simple people to start.

          • RedHotScot


            Sorry but your Guardian article is simply an attempt to crucify Malcolm Roberts. And whilst there is a lot of hot air from Prof Steven Sherwood and Prof Peter Doherty, they can’t provide a single scientific paper with a meaningful theory that proves Co2 causes AGW. If there were any, wouldn’t it be simpler to refer to them, rather than drag out the old rhetoric that anyone that disagrees with Co2 induced AGW doesn’t understand science?

            This from the AGW community that gave us Climategate and now John Bates’ expose of Tom Karl et al’s reckless and dishonest behaviour with climate data. So why should anyone trust scientists who have been proven to manipulate data and violate scientific methods simply to promote their ‘belief’ in AGW? We should be more worried about what these people are not telling us rather than what they are telling us.

            The NASA paper I directed you to is rather ironic, isn’t it. However, I’m sure that in another attempt to prove the world was heading for armageddon, funds were raised to study the satellite data, and when the results were expected, as a return on investment if you like, there was no alternative but to publish the data. I mean, it would be extraordinarily difficult to tinker with a result of that magnitude of increased benefit from Co2, unlike temperatures of course.

            And when you blithely dismiss NASA data with the term “misinformation” I assume, therefore that you dismiss all other NASA data as misinformation. Or are you happy only recognising facts that prove your belief in AGW?

            You cant have it both ways.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi Scot I wasn’t referring to the NASA data you sent as misinformation, I was referring to misinformation from other sources. And yes the Guardian was pretty harsh on Malcolm Roberts but it’s because he deserves it. You obviously missed the point of the article if you are still saying ‘they can’t provide a single scientific paper with a meaningful theory that proves Co2 causes AGW’.
            Anyway mate, good luck and let’s keep both our minds open. Cheers

          • RedHotScot

            Misinformation like Climategate and Tom Karl et al.? Fact distortion, data manipulation and political motivations for shoddy scientific work that broke conventions of science itself? Or is all that forgivable because it happens to support the alarmists position?

            I’m not sure anyone deserves an overtly Ad Hom attack in international media without facts to support it. There are two opinions expressed by two climate alarmist scientists. But scientists aren’t paid for opinions, they are paid to produce credible, fact supported theories.

            When any scientist starts spouting opinions you know they are guessing, what’s more, they know they are guessing.

            The planet has never been closer to complete extinction of life than ver the last 3M years or so, solely because of Co2 starvation.

            Best you hope man can influence atmospheric Co2, because if it goes the other way, we are all dead along with everything else.

          • Otipua08

            You accept this from your reference? “While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.”

          • RedHotScot

            Like I said in my first post, there is no convincing empirical evidence that Co2 causes global temperature change. Over the last 30 years, there should have been hundreds, if not thousands. So where are they?

            The most influential greenhouse gas is acknowledged to be atmospheric water vapour, it forms 5% of all GHG’s whilst Co2 forms 3%. But by every climatologists own admission, no one knows anything meaningful about clouds. So they just repeat the mantra that Co2 is the culprit, despite there being no evidence.

            “The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.”

            For 80% of the planet’s existence, there were no frozen poles. Melting sea ice merely tells us the planet is getting warmer, it doesn’t provide a cause, which is more likely to be natural than man made. Sea levels have not risen meaningfully, if at all (remember, sea level is regional) as ‘sea level rise’ is also subject to land subsiding, rather than the water rising, due to tectonic plate movement.

            And there are no reliable records of increased hurricanes or tornadoes as we have only recently begun to monitor them on a global scale, and over water, whereas prior to satellite monitoring they were only recorded if they were seen or experienced.

            And have any of these predicted disasters approached the 14% of global greening over the last 30 years?


          • Otipua08

            “So they just repeat the mantra that Co2 is the culprit, despite there being no evidence.” Never read an IPCC report have you? You know, that compendium of the latest scientific evidence on the issue of GLOBAL WARMING!
            “For 80% of the planet’s existence, there were no frozen poles”
            So bloody what? That has never been the case while human civilisation has relied on the recent climate stability! Fancy sea levels 60 metres higher?
            Water vapour is a feed back gas, The atmosphere has to warm BEFORE it increases in the atmosphere. It reinforces warming!
            Weather disasters

          • RedHotScot

            From your Giss link.

            Para 1. Sentence 3.
            “What makes this difficult to estimate is that as the climate begins to warm, the atmosphere reorganizes itself in ways that could either amplify or mitigate the original input of energy that initiated the climate change.

            Para 2. Sentence 1.
            “Clouds play a leading role in this real-life mystery.”

            That’s fairly certain then, isn’t it.

            From your earthsky link

            Para 1. Sentence 2.
            “in which 32 groups of scientists from more than 20 countries investigated 28 individual extreme weather events in 2014 and concluded that human-induced climate change played some role in half of them.”

            Could it be any more vague? “some role in half of them”

            Oh! Wait! Yes it can get more vague!

            NOAA’s November 5th statement does that.

            “When a climate change influence is not found it could mean two things. First, that climate change has not had any appreciable impact on an event. Or, it could also mean that the human influence cannot be conclusively identified with the scientific tools available today.”

            And the question that now must be asked is, can we trust any NOAA data as Climategate and Tom Karl et al. shot that particular fox. Proven data manipulation and political motivation in a scientific debate.

            “Fancy sea levels 60 metres higher?”

            As sea levels, at best, are rising by single digit millimeters a year, how long do you imagine your hysterical 60M sea level rise claim will take?

            Stop scaremongering. There is not one single paper, in any IPCC report, that empirically proves Co2 causes global temperature change. And yes, I have read them all.

          • Otipua08

            You accept this from your reference? “The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

          • RedHotScot

            What studies? Precisely.

          • Otipua08

            Hey mate, it’s from your reference. Perhaps you should read references before you post them to support your argument, which they don’t!

          • RedHotScot

            If you, nor them, can provide anything better than “Studies have shown” it is a worthless, unsupported remark. Hardly scientific now, is it?

            But thats OK as sceptics are used to alarmists quoting unsupportable remarks like Co2 causes global atmospheric warming. There is no evidence for that either.

          • Otipua08

            You accept this from your reference? “While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.” I thought deniers didn’t accept studies that involve scientific modelling?

          • RedHotScot


            Irrespective of what the attribution is based on, the fact is, the planet has greened by 14% over the last 30 years. Now unless there is another unknown fertilisation phenomenon, the conclusion must be that increased atmospheric Co2 is the sole contributor.

            Now, instead of trying to nit pick faults and concoct ridiculous scenarios, why don’t you find something, anything, within the AGW alarmist portfolio of disasters predicted to befall the planet, that even comes close to a 14% increase.

            Sea levels? Nope (quite apart from those being regional, sea levels are different at each end of the Panama Canal), Droughts, Hurricanes, Tornados, even global temperatures. Nope to all.

            Then figure out what would happen if atmospheric Co2 levels fell. The planet is, right now, in the coldest period it has ever been in 65M years before descending into an ice age. Some 100 years ago or so, atmospheric Co2 was at 280ppm, Had it dropped by just 80ppm, plant life would struggle to survive, at 150ppm, all meaningful plant life dies.

            Is that what you want? Because by fiddling with the liberating of accidental, but naturally sequestered Co2 (Coal, Gas, Oil etc.) we could yet plunge the planet into Co2 starvation.

        • gpenglase

          A generalised statement that all scientists try to get it right is bogus.
          How can you say that when the supposed top climate change scientists (IPCC) in the world purposefully falsified data to achieve their ends? And they are far from the only climate change scientists who have played tricks with data for their own ends…

          There definitely *are* scientists who try to ‘get it right’ since they are the scientists who actually let the demonstrable facts speak for themselves. But an awful lot of them are against anthropological global warming (AGW) and an awful lot more are afraid to speak up because they know it will mean the loss of jobs or worse.

          And it also depends on what you mean by climate change deniers. Climate does change, always is changing and has trended many times back and forth throughout the history – what is *hugely* in dispute is whether there’s any proof that man has much (or anything) to do with it.

          How you spent a decent amount of time reading the work of those who are against the concept of AGW or only those you like to listen to in your own little bubble? “Consensus science” is the biggest scientific scam out there – many notable discoveries went unaccepted by ‘peer-review’ because the accepted consensus was against them.

          • jervis121

            @gpenglase: Exactly Thanks for putting him straight. The MSM are the biggest scammers outside of the Socialist run UN They are under orders to ramp up global warming or CAGW hysteria in (a now futile effort) to scare the public into compliance – get them used to being told how to live and what we must do and must not do.
            Socialists who infiltrated the green movement invented this enormous global hoax to try and form a Socialist ONE WORLD government tyranny. That’s what Trump and Brexit were all about.
            We’ve had enough of being told what to do… Finally the people are (the ‘silent majority’) are waking up to what’s going on and we’re fighting back! And we haven’t even started yet…
            Here’s a couple of links that tell you what it’s all about and there are MANY more where they came from. This is what the MSM are not telling us and are not allowed to tell us:
            And here’s a brief history about the hoax and how it was born:

          • gpenglase

            Agreed, As I said… follow the money is all one needs to do to find the motive behind it. The sad thing about it is the short term memory loss of so many people who forget that the UN was pushing global taxation with exactly the opposite story – global ice age only 30 years ago. How quickly people forget. When that didn’t work they changed their tune, only to have weather flumox them again, but this time they wouldn’t let facts get in the way and spoil their plans. This time their movement was better organised, better marketed (just like the first attempt at gst was a flop and then it was brought in – both sides of politics were pushing for it (as long as they got to push it). The hysteria that followed AGW created a wave of fortunes for the elites built on nothing but bogus “science” otherwise known, wild speculation, and (pun intended) hot air.

            After all, the UN *must* have a global tax, as tax is the easiest and most lucrative way to control the multitudes – through economic servitude; and the easiest tax to push is an eco-tax (since we have all signed our sovereignty over to them in the form of “ecological oversight” ie climate change treaties). It’s the easiest to sell to brainwashed dupes, and you can keep “creating” the science out of thin air till kingdom come.

          • ThisNameInUse

            The only people falsifying data are the authors on the crackpot websites you read. No climate scientist has been found doing that.

          • gpenglase

            Congratulations. In a world full of globalist propaganda you’ve managed to shut your ears and go “la la la” so no-one will manage to dissuade you from “an inconvenient truth”.

            If man-made global warming were so obviously true (given that it is a documented fact that UN climate change scientist were pushing the imminent catastrophe of *global cooling* in the 70s) then why have so many spent such a great amount of time re-writing AGW history. IPCC scientists by their own admission were caught red-handed (in their own words) hiding data that went against their *beliefs*. Tey weren’t the only ones. Of course, it caused people to lose their jobs in IPCC and also in other universities, and revealed the scam that were “IPCC projections” causing top scientists from IPCC and others previously supportive of AGW to resign and renounce both IPCC and the false data. However, much of this was howled down as “climate skeptic hysteria” while ignoring that over 1000 top scientists came out against AGW and IPCC even though many of them were previously supporters. But even so, the AGW machine rolled on, disclaiming what was obvious to everyone except those who are up to their necks in this scam.

            So, tell me… if it’s so true, why would so much of that trashy *novel* Wikipedia need to be re-written, massaged into a AGW propaganda piece but Nils Simon and William Connelly (neither who have much scientific credibility let alone any real knowledge in this area).
            If you really are open minded then you’ll do the research.
            But if you aren’t, and you’ll know it because you don’t want to read anything that goes against your beliefs, then you’ll just ignore it. The internet maybe the best tool to promote propaganda since Hitler’s regime, but it is a double-edged sword – the information is still out there, still accessible and still verifiable.

          • Rod Driediger
      • Gravedigger

        Im so old Steve that I can remember the last scam, which was global cooling and the immenent ice age in the 70,s. The answer to that one was truck loads of our money as well.

        • ThisNameInUse

          Yet another bald-faced lie that lives on in the delusional bubble of the Climate Change Denier. The scientific consensus (by a ratio of six to one) in the 1970s was that we were in for warming in the coming years. They were dead right, of course.

          • Deplorable Steve

            You are, off course, completely wrong again. In the 70s it was an ice age…

          • JB

            There is no such personage as a climate change denier. Our correct title is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Skeptics.

    • Steffi Liao

      Well Dan, its all down to cognitive laziness, at the end of the day. Its no good ‘hoping’ – go and find out for yourself! The information is out there. Here’s a few pointers;
      – there is no evidence that CO2 causes climate change. Refer to Piers Corbyn (many You Tube vids)
      – The Vostok Ice core data tells an undeniable story – 600,000 years of data showing CO2 only rises AFTER an increase in temperature levels, not before. Cause & effect – CO2 the effect, temperature the cause – not the other way round.

  • Deplorable Steve

    Oh this is the best ‘GET FUCKED’ I have ever seen in print. I love, double love, triple love it!!!

  • Jim Simpson

    Well said Adam! Dead right. Covers all the bases! What a pity I hadn’t sighted it a week or so earlier as I was down in Melbourne & would very much like to have shared a beer or two or three or more with you to reflect upon the climate scam that I & others in our Sydney based Climate Realists group have been campaigning against these past 10 years.

    In the event that you (and/or others for that matter of like mind) care to join The Climate Realists of Five Dock, we currently gather for a beer or two plus dinner at The Barnwell Park Golf Club, 551 Lyons Road West, Five Dock NSW 2046 from around 6:30pm most Thursday evenings. Give me a ring on 0417 285 884 in advance to check that we’re going to be there! .

    • Adam Piggott

      Next time I am up your way I will gladly take up your kind offer.

  • y. Iamu

    The last trick that came unstuck for this lot was the bubios claim that 97% of all scientists agreed on the science. It turns out that was fixed too. It was 97% of only 77 scientists that the board hand selected and even a lot of those spoke up and disputed that they completely agreed. Some even saying their words have been badly misused.
    I don’t disagree we should try to keep our air clean but destroying the economy and the landscape is nothing short of stupidity.

    • ThisNameInUse

      You’re right. It’s not 97%. It’s more like 99.99%

      Oh, and – not that facts or reality are of any vague interest to a climate change denier, but there hasn’t been just one peer reviewed survey of climate scientists on this in recent years showing agreement in the 97+% range, there have been four or five (depending on your preferred methodology).

      The Merchant of Doubt strawman swings and misses again. What a surprise.

      • Otipua08

        Yep, you could fill up an entire mini van with those right wing scientists that have abandoned their educational qualifications and reputation, to pursue the fossil fuel $$$$$$$$$$$. Spencer, Christy, Curry, Lindzen.

        • ThisNameInUse

          Meanwhile there’s an ocean liner of reputable scientists going the other direction.

        • trevormarr

          In 2017, AGW now is officially defined as Al Gore’s Wrong!!!

          • ThisNameInUse

            I don’t see Al Gore’s name on a single one of the 2,000 or so scientific articles from a recent year. Maybe you’re just an idiot?

          • Ed Minchau

            Al Gore, you’ve never heard of him? He’s the guy who won an Oscar for best documentary with a work of fiction, then bought a four million dollar condo in San Fransisco within walking distance of the ocean. He’s kinda famous.

          • Steve

            And dishonest .

          • ron ulmer

            thisnameinuse…..Is Al Gore a scientist? NO. Maybe that’s why he isn’t named as a scientist on scientific reviews. What do you think? You sure have a way with words.

          • Steve

            Yes…write an article, find someone who believes exactly what you do, is getting their money from the same place, voila, they agree with you and now your paper is “peer reviewed”. WE ALL KNOW THE DAMN GAME.

          • trevormarr

            No.. that statement just proves it! You are the winner of the 2017 Climate Lemming of the Year!!! Congrats!

        • josh coray

          Christy has NEVER taken money from big oil. None of them have.

          You are repeating lies. Such blatant, clearly fabricated ones, that we can see that nothing else from you is worth listening too.

          Just as the article states, we have put up with your controlling BS and lies far long enough.

          Good evening Troll.

        • Steve

          none of them get money from “big oil”…in fact “big oil” gives far more money to the liars. You are just making shit up because you are too stupid to do otherwise.

          The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon
          has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

          • Kdo

            Steve – I was hoping to bookmark your ‘detailed response”, mentioned above. I’d be appreciative if you could post the link. I’m so tired of this bullshit ad hominem “bias” claim.

          • Otipua08

            Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998

          • Otipua08

            You are full of it! Exxon funding warmists? Whatever that is? “In December 2002, Exxon announced the Global Climate and Energy Project (G-CEP) at Stanford University in partnership with General Electric and Schlumberger and other corporate partners to follow. Exxon committed $100 million over 10 years. The project is NOT INTENDED TO FURTHER EXPLORE CLIMATE SCIENCE, instead focusing on development of new energy technology and carbon sequestration technology.” In other words hedging their bets. Funding libertarian lobbyists and their scientific prostitutes on one hand to prevent regulation and on the other acknowledging the damage they are doing and exploring alternatives to cooking the planet!

            Source: Exxon GCEP press release

      • g1lgam3sh


        Ok then, as you’re such an ‘expert’, just answer these simple questions.

        You’re the one positing the hypothesis of AGW so the onus is on you and here it is.

        In terms of the null hypothesis of natural variation show us an experiment designed to falsify it using verifiable and replicable empirical evidence.

        Explain in your own words the significance of the null hypothesis and falsifiability to the scientific method.

        This is science 101 so should be easy for you.

        Failing that just produce 1(One) peer reviewed paper which shows a causal link between human derived CO2 emissions and any atmospheric warming using verifiable and replicable empirical evidence.

        Here’s a little hint for you.

        “It is the rule which says that the other rules of scientific procedure must be designed in such a way that they do not protect any statement in science against falsification.”

        Karl Popper

        Your Nobel Prize awaits

      • Mark Pawelek

        “ThisNameInUse”: Another expert posting under an cowardly anonymous psuedoname. No need to bother answering such liars as: ThisNameInUse.

      • Steve

        My God…clueless and ignorant…what a combination. My guess is you are dumb enough to get your information from the Union of Concerned Scientists…a clown group.

        As for the 97% consensus claim, that was shown wrong here and here. In fact in a recent Forbes article, it was reported only 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem. The survey results show earth scientists and engineers
        hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

        • Kdo

          Steve – I note that (presumably) your links are not showing up as you desire.

      • Scottar

        y. Iamu is right, the alleged consensus figure came various bogus studies that have all been debunked.

        The Myth of the Climate Change 97%

        Joseph Bast And Roy Spencer, WSJ on December 2, 2015.

        Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard.

        Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran.

        In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences.

        In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

        Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.”

        The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

        Read the entire article.

      • plusaf

        I’ve been collecting reports (as well as cartoons) on the subject for some years, too… to wit:


        I’ve seen that other claim elsewhere, too… “It was 97% of only 77 scientists that the board hand selected and even a lot of those spoke up and disputed that they completely agreed. Some even saying their words have been badly misused. ”

        and I’d like to know if you deny it. The report I saw was that, when the ‘poll’ was repeated with a much larger sample, into the thousands of reports, the net “consensus” was approximately 52% to 48%… damned close to what an unbiased coin would produce as a statistical result.

        Oh, and some decades ago, I, as an engineering school graduate, terminated my subscription to Scientific American when it morphed into what appeared to me to be a clone of “Popular Science”… dumbed down for “the common folk.”

        Prior to that, the science and reporting and articles were of much higher quality and veracity.

        But, hey, whatever data supports the conclusions of Your Cult..

  • bilerga

    “I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam.” Have you ever seen photos of the Alberta tar sands?

    • Tom

      bilgera –I have actually been there and seen them-I also saw the areas that are restored to better than original condition after removing the bitumen. The lefties somehow never get round to photographing these areas -I wonder why?
      Mark Twain once said “the trouble with folks is not what they don’t know,but what they know that isn’t so”.

    • Rod Driediger

      bilerga: Have you ever seen a Lithium mine? The oil sands footprint, the area that gets mined doesn’t look any different than any other open pit mining site anywhere else in the world except a) they are restored to a much better condition than which they were originally found once mining that area is complete, b) the workers work at the highest safety standard in the world (is that also true of Lithium mining in China?), c) operations of the oil sands in general are the most highly regulated industry standard in the world.

      All this of course says Alberta Oilsands is ‘ethical oil’. Is there any such thing as ”ethical lithium”, or “ethical windfarms”?

    • Rod Driediger
  • Otipua08

    Your name’s on the list of those that steered humanity off the cliff also Adam. Once the proletariat realises the lies from the corporatocracy and their minions have cost them their liveable planet. Things will get interesting for deniers!

    • Wide Awake

      False dichotomy. Climate science is the biggest example of groupthink I have ever seen.

      • Otipua08

        Groupthink tends to happen amongst those in possession of a brain, once evidence is conclusive, beyond any shadow of doubt. Others, are better off playing in the sand pit, until their brain develops into an adults.

        • Wide Awake

          It’s the sand pit for you then!

          • Otipua08
          • Wide Awake

            You seem to be conflating climate change and the role man plays in causing it. As many people seem to think, mostly because it suits their agenda, that people denying climate change is manmade is the same as denying climate change all together.

          • Otipua08

            What’s causing it?

          • Wide Awake

            Maybe it is a normal cycle. We have had an ice age before, what caused that. I feel humans give themselves too much credit in the role they play on earth.

          • Otipua08

            The energy causing the Earth to warm didn’t magically appear! We know what’s causing it. We also know the cycles that cause ice ages.

          • Wide Awake

            “We know what’s causing it”.
            It is statements like this that are the problem. We actually know bugger all, the energy causing the earth to warm comes from he sun.

          • Otipua08

            Why is the Earth getting warmer when the suns radiance has declined then? Hint, there’s gases in the atmosphere,put there by humans, that are preventing heat escaping as easily as it used to.”We actually know bugger all” Correction, you know bugger all and are not interested in knowing. Keep your fingers in your ears and let the grown ups deal with the problem!

          • Wide Awake

            Enjoy the sand pit!!

          • Otipua08

            Pehaps you imagine it’s fairy dust causing the planet to warm?It sure isn’t the sun!

          • Steffi Liao

            Great – this shows that CO2 only rises AFTER an increase in temperature levels, not before. Cause & effect – CO2 the effect, temperature the cause – not the other way round. But you have nicely disguised the ‘before and after’ lag.. but don’t let the truth get in the way of your ‘religion’..

          • Otipua08

            Not big on reading scientific information are you Steffi? Hint: top squiggly line, suns irradiance, bottom squiggly line, observed sun spot numbers. CO2 and temperature are closely related and historically (we are talking warming after ice ages here), it was a forcing other than CO2 that initiated warming e.g. Milankovich cycles. THIS TIME IS DIFFERENT! There are no forcings causing the warming, other than CO2. The graph shows solar output declining, so why else is the planet warming?

          • Otipua08

            You have evidence of CO2 not trapping heat in the atmosphere? Maybe it’s cold in your back yard? Or maybe your religion of reality denial doesn’t allow independent thought?

    • cbarrett

      Your name is on the list for diverting funds from real preventable environmental problems, and causing human deaths from unnecessary energy poverty. These things can be proven by the numbers, your religious beliefs cannot.

      • Otipua08

        Reality isn’t a religious belief. It would be a waste of time spending money on “real preventable [sic]” if the planet is cooked by your CO2 spewing priests in the right wing!

  • aussiegooner

    I agree 100%, BUT!!! It isn’t over, because the scam persists in the face of all the evidence against it. Out next PM (G-d help us) wants us to have 50% renewable energy in a very few years. Most world governments still contribute to the scam. A lot of otherwise intelligent people still adhere to it.

    The battle isn’t won, even in the face of a huge weight of evidence that it is indeed a scam, which scam scientists will maintain even whilst trashing science, supported by ignorant political classes and ordinary people who simply haven’t bothered to seek out the facts.

    We need a few governments to be elected which make policy the dumping of AGW in the garbage bin. Governments elected on a platform of dismantling the scam. That will start to filter down to those who just don’t realise the size of this heist.

    • Joe shows that a Caringbah NSW company had no power in 1 year 9 times. They are suing Ausgrid

    • trevormarr

      Let’s ALL speak LOUDER!!! We are being SCAMMED!!! Just imagine if the money wasted on the Climate Lie was spent on helping the needy!!!

      • trevormarr

        In 2017, the term AGW needs to be redefined as meaning ‘Al Gore’s Wrong’!!!

  • evets1709

    Wow, what a load of crock. There is just so much evidence that you are talking through your backside. But let’s just say for a moment you have some credence. What would be wrong with cleaning up the planet, getting a better source of power, Setting up a new, exciting industry based on renewables even if your take on affairs is right. YOur rant is pathetic. I especially like your feeble attempt at discrediting the ifo presented to the IPCC. But just to burst your bubble, here is a link to the rebuttle to your argument. If you are going to link to an article, may I suggest that you see if there are any opposing views So here we go” You spit anger and venom and say you won’t forget. I guess those on the other side of this argument could say the same thing, they won’t forget either. Not because they will remember, but because they as for you, won’t be around to either remember or forget. Once tipping points are past, it takes a long long time to gain back the lost ground. SO where would you like to start? The rapidly retreating glaciers? Leading to lack of fresh water for millions. Hey they will MIGRATE and cause conflict. Or the acidification of oceans (basic chemistry there bucko) that will destroy skeletons of micro and macro organisms. Hey a break down in the ocean food chain, or the heating of the oceans? More el nino events, destruction of say the GBReef. Oh that’s right. 60000 jobs depend on tourism to the GBR, or how about the migration of species both north (nthn hemi) and south (sthn hemi) casusing disease of resident species. ALL of those things are happening now. So your shallow, useless, pathetic “OPINION” piece is worth ……. well ……… ZIP. Have a nice day

    • Evets…I gather you are a supporter of the the Greenhoax Global Warming Religion.
      It IS a religion. A nutty Religion.
      Your vehement belief system no doubt would have the “Deniers” crucified or burnt at the stake.
      “How dare you challenge the science of Global Warming, how dare you ! Off with his head !”
      Like all Lefty’s you rely on outrage and screaming argument and bluster to force your peculiar views onto everyone.
      Go away.

      • Otipua08
        • By your posts in your profile, you absolutely fancy yourself to be a “scientific expert”.
          Laughable really.
          And what I find gut bustingly funny is that you link to an article from the Washington Post ! No credibility comes from that dying rag.
          WAPO, along with the NYT …. a throbbing centre of Fake News and retarded lefty shilling.
          And like all lefties, you pick and choose items to support your wacko beliefs and vehemently attack anyone or anything outside the bubble of ultra limited lefty intellect.
          Blocked….another Troll bites the dust !

          • Otipua08

            So you are saying the gentlemen mentioned are not Republicans? I’m actually conservative, but when the right wingnuts moved to insane mode, I was pushed out.

      • Deplorable Steve

        And right there Mr Bucky is the reason I don’t believe a word evets says. I don’t know about the science of climate change but I can reasonably conclude that it is a hoax simply because it is a leftist religion. After all, these people believe that there are 567 genders, a man can marry a man, gender is fluid, white people are evil, socialism is great because they get to access money stolen from people who actually work for it, murdering in the womb is great because it supports ‘women’s rights’, Islam is a religion of peace, Western civilisation must be destroyed, even though they are too stupid to realise that will result in their own demise and everyone owes them something. And unicorns fart fairy floss…

      • evets1709

        I would gladly give you and anyone else that slows down efforts to try and fix this problem lead poisoning. I put many examples of solid proof. Not some religious bullshit, actual proof and you refuse to even entertain it. As things get worse and society breaks down I really hope I am still here because I will only have one purpose and that will be relieve my anger by finding and stringing out those that are part of the problem so that they suffer as long as possible. And what a stupid tag. “lefties” I am pretty sure I am further to the right than you regarding immigration. (that’s part of the reason I want to stop AGW – I don’t want millions of immigrants swamping other countries, taking food from us, lowering our standard of living – sound lefty to you you stupid f&cking fool) Tagging anyone with a left or right symbol shows your ignorance

    • Long time John.

      Talk about brain washed,so easily done with the left.

    • gpenglase

      Evidence of what precisely? that climate does change? i think we can all agree on that.
      That these changes have an effect of water, reefs, weather etc. Yep can all agree on that.
      That it is caused by humans – Nope!… and that’s where the BS science comes in.

      IPCC did it, other “top climate change scientists” have done it. And anyone against it needs to look over their shoulder even though there’ so much hard evidence against anthropoligcal global warming.

      Seems that you don’t even know what the argument is about.

      btw the “rapidly retreating glaciers” is a funny one – you really need to read outside your bubble zone – ice flows and volumes change – there’s a greater volume of ice now than there was when this BS started hitting the news.

    • jervis121

      Another unfortunate, hopelessly indoctrinated victim of the climate change HOAX. Not your fault so I won’t say anything more…

  • Martin Clark

    I concur. Hopefully there will be some retribution for perpetuating the biggest criminal scam ever inflicted on the human race.
    Apart from the trillions of public money wasted, there is the damage done to individuals.
    Here in Queensland, around 2010-12, the State government put the UN IPCC RCP 8.5 into the State Planning Policy. That’s the OTT expectation of sea level rise of 800mm, temperature
    rise of 3°C by 2100. Associated with that is the expectation that precipitation will rise by 5% per °C eg 15%. Every local planning scheme now has that expectation hard-wired into it.
    While it is obvious that many towns in Queensland are built in stupid places, eg at the estuary of watercourses that have catchments of 500,000 sq. km or more, we now have large areas designated as flood prone that have never been flooded in the past 200+ years, and many that are not recognised as flood-prone in the oral traditions of the traditional owners.
    In 2013 I, and possibly one or two other practitioners, objected to the inclusion of RCP 8.5 in the SPP. I am aware that my objection ended up on (then) Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney’s desk. Shortly afterwards, the offending section was removed from the SPP, but was put back in
    by the Labor Government in 2015. (This was long after the IPCC itself had ceased to promote RCP 8.5.)
    I have one customer who has lost more than $A200,000 in value of construction work due to this fanciful and absurd element in State law, and several others who will have lost similar amounts. Total that I can vouch for will be near enough $A1million. And I am one part-time practitioner working mostly in one small corner of the State.

    • Martin, that is an extraordinary story but I can well believe it. Imagine the costs, Statewide in Qld.
      What is the outlook for Brisbane, will the bureaucrats foist these stupid regulations on the city ?

      • Hi Bucky ” … What is the outlook for Brisbane … ”
        I guess the Brisbane scheme will have the same requirements. There might be a difference because Brisbane is one of the towns built in the wrong place 🙁
        Townsville has three significant rivers, but all have much smaller catchments. Which is why we currently have a major problem. Everything looks green, but the main containment is at less than 20%, and the end of the “wet” is not far off.

  • Biologyteacher100

    China and India are rapidly shutting down coal fired plants and coal mining companies have been going bankrupt left and right. Climate change is rapid and is causing more damage and cost decade by decade. Cut the anti science nonsense.

    • gpenglase

      haha. this is garbage. Yes, coal mining companies have been going bankrupt as a result of this AGW BS – but gov’ts are starting to put money back into coal because they are realising that you can only kid yourself for so long and eventually you need heat and elec without losing too many votes because the prices of elec is just too high.

      Much of consensus science is just that – nonsense.

      • jervis121

        This guy is an omnipresent CAGW alarmist troll. I suggest you ignore him. I gave him a burst under one of his earlier comments (above) anyway.

        • Gravedigger

          Couldn’t help it, but I also poke at spiders with a stick for amusement.

        • that guy is a TWAT
          Total Weather Alarmist Troll

    • Then let’s go Nuclear. Nice clean power.
      Nuclear power…? but of course not…the NIMBY brigade and Greenies will be out in droves,protesting.

      However, the Aboriginals will love it, as they can let their “sacred land” be ripped to shreds for the Yellowcake and get mucho $$$$$$.

      Oh, ok, let’s use wind power……that worked out well for South Australia recently, didn’t it ?

      There is no one more “anti science” than the lefty warmist doom mongers.

    • Bruce Mc

      Funny that an Indian company is about to build one of the largest coal mines in Australia in QLD.
      This article from Dec 2016 seems to suggest that India is definitely not shutting down coal mining, they actually want more.
      Prime Minister Modi has been a staunch supporter of cheap electricity for the people of India as he wants less poverty for his country. What’s the cheapest electricity? Coal, thats why India is ramping it up not down.

    • Deplorable Steve


    • Gravedigger

      I know, I’ll ring my buddy Tim Flannery….he will tell me what to do, he always gets it right. Btw wonder how his shares in geothermal power are going?and if you really believe what you say above and it’s one of Flannerys porkys btw,you are not fit to teach chimps.

  • Michael Simpson

    Wow great piece. 100 per cent correct!

  • Marc Fogarty

    Oh Dear, sadly delusional…..but funny to read

    • jervis121

      Yes YOU are so delusional loonie leftard!

      • ScottyWired

        How do you know they’re a leftist?

        • Otipua08

          Everyone with a functioning brain is to the left of insane science deniers!

  • clive

    The climate change believers are still at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. Sadly, they have and will cause great damage to the rest of us on their way to their final battle.

  • jervis121

    Thanks Adam. Perfect summary of the greatest and most evil HOAX in history. If its allowed to run any longer, it could easily become the greatest HOLOCAUST in history.
    I’ve posted some links below in replies to others, but just google Agenda 21 or or Agenda 2030 to read what the MSM are forbidden to tell us…

    • Steffi Liao

      It IS already the greatest holocaust – as Christopher Monckton has pointed out.

    • ThisNameInUse

      400,000 humans a year already dying from climate change. And we’re barely getting started.

      Keep muttering your nonsense. Your circle jerk group here seems to really enjoy it. No one else is impressed.

      • trevormarr

        You are fooled, a fool, or trying to fool! Where is the Crisis? Where is the Catastrophe? The demonization of fossil fuels is absolutely STUPID!

        Fossil Fuels and Oil are the Cure, not a Curse at all!

        “Cutting off the nose to spite the face” is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one’s anger.

        Go ahead and list me 10 modern, useful things that are made strictly GREEN and will not require ANY oil/fossil fuel influence in their existence!!!


        We will always optimize/innovate the capables, we do not need to restrict our civilization only to the INCAPABLES!

        Yes we will NEVER get to the Jetsons if we hypocritically cripple our society to the capability of the Flintstones!!!

        • ThisNameInUse

          Friendly tip: throwing exclamation points up on a web page doesn’t make data go away. It really doesn’t.

          • trevormarr

            Reality mocks the Climate Cult! Do your history! You will fail the class and the Human Race if you don’t do your research!!!

          • trevormarr

            Friendly tip…. watch and learn! here is a movie for YOU!

  • mic drop …

  • Mike Marsh


    • Otipua08

      James “I’ve been intellectually raped” Delingpole? Complaining about an actual scientist knowing more than him. Intellectual lightweight!

  • Donald Campbell

    I think you are being unfair to the Y2K alarmists. They mostly admitted that they simply didn’t know, and indeed all those old COBOL programs did only use 2 digits for the year. The fact that Excel has a pivot for 2 digit years into either 20xx or 19xx shows that at least they had some validity for their concern.

  • Daniel Kirsner

    C̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶A̶l̶a̶r̶m̶i̶s̶t̶s̶ Climate Hysterics.

  • Amfortas

    Not forget. Constantly remind. But how about names? Those bozos will switch to other bizzare claims and they need to be named and shamed. Al Gore we all know, but how about a ‘top 100’ of climate embezzelers?

  • Nassim7

    Good one. Thank you.

    I am trying to get a group of skeptics in Melbourne together for a regular chat and a drink. Not just about “Climate Change”, but the other lies as well that have been dominating the media.

    More details at:

    Fake News – can two realities co-exist?

  • Matt in the Box

    Adam, Dumb and wrong.

    You realise you have to continually lie to maintain your position?

    That makes you a liar. (That’s not abuse, it is a statement of fact).

    • Deplorable Steve

      I think I can hear a leftard crying…

  • Matt in the Box
    • entropy

      So we don’t have to block you, then?

      • Matt in the Box

        I couldn’t give a shit. It’s a wankers’ forum.

        • entropy

          I’ll give you the hot tip, friend: wanking is actually a lot of fun and you’re in for some messy times when you finally hit puberty.

          Until then, you might want to avoid being triggered so hard you lose bladder control. Mum isn’t going to believe the wet sheets are due to rising sea levels however much you squeal that she’s a denier.

          • Matt in the Box

            I think you’ve just proven my point.

          • Matt, you sound butthurt….cheer up matey.
            It’s not the end of the World ….. yet.
            I suggest you have a Warmist sabbatical and go rescue some sad Penguins from the shrinking icebergs.

        • yet, you are here…hmmmmmmm

          • Matt in the Box

            Only to respond to general dickheadedness.

            All you little ideological warriors in your adult diapers thinking you are fighting the good fight, but just disappearing up your own arses of irrelevancy.
            And the world warms.

          • MattBoxHead,

            reported and blocked…at least I wont see your drivel and nasty comments again….

          • Matt in the Box

            You shouldn’t be wasting air force resources on your little dickhead club posts.
            They really should purge the right wing nut jobs from the military. ——————————————–

          • Deplorable Steve

            You are beginning to smell very badly…

          • Deplorable Steve

            Look, you said you were going. Now begone…

          • Matt in the Box

            I am random right wing nut job. I can respond to stupid comments with email..
            It’s like picking up dog shit with tongs. Deal with the problem, but don’t have to touch the shit ——————————————–

        • Deplorable Steve

          You’re still here???

    • Dan Flynn

      Dude, these kinds of comments just make it LESS LIKELY that people will share your view. Be cool. Be respectful. Our planet is counting on us.

      • Matt in the Box

        How much respect do you think a lying, anti-science, right wing nut job website should get?

        The answer is none.

        • How much respect do you think a lying, trolling anti free speech,left wing nut job poster should get ?
          (there…fixed it for ya)

        • Dan Flynn

          Hi Matt,
          I share your frustration, I really do, but I think the reason we have things like Trump and climate change denial is because we have been too dismissive and disrespectful towards people who have different views. Sure, we could abuse them and shut them out, but what does that achieve? People just dig in even more. We need open, honest and respectful communication to address to mess we’re in. Perhaps it’s a lost cause but I intend to try. Peace.

          • RedHotScot

            Thankfully, you have learned lessons from Brexit and Trump.

            A refreshing, welcome change.


          • Dan Flynn

            Cheers Scot, we’re always learning!

          • RedHotScot

            Every day’s a school day.

            You will like this. An eminent, environmentalist, mathematician using simple arithmetic to demonstrate the viability of renewables. Sadly he died a short time ago.


        • Deplorable Steve

          I thought you were going???

    • Please define ” real scientists” ?
      Is it a Scientist that fits your narrative.
      Please explain.

    • Deplorable Steve

      Good riddance…

      • Matt in the Box

        You can have your little circle jerk all to yourselves.

        And when we don’t visit, just be reassured that :

        1. Decent people still hold you right wing nut jobs in contempt, and 2. Anthropomorphic global warming is still occurring, despite what some ill-educates think.
        Learn some science, and well, stop being you. ——————————————–

  • entropy

    The ‘renewable energy’ myth has always perplexed me. Since the law of conservation of energy tells us that “energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed from one form into another”, any definition of ‘renewable energy’ is entirely arbitrary.

    I usually go the other way, though. Coal isn’t renewable, you say? Grow a tree, chop it down, walk away, wait 300 million years… voilà! Coal. What’s the problem?

    Somewhat related, I once dated an environmental science student (pause for laughter) and lines were drawn when she started to nag me about ‘conserving water’. Since I was just showering in it rather than returning it to its elemental components via electrolysis, a educational conversation ensued.

    • entropy, the best way to save water is to shower with a friend………..

  • gillardgone

    My how we are still being taken for dummies on this global Warming scam, it has been clear for years and years that the weather is cyclical,time to wake up it’s not us it’s that big thing in the sky called the sun that runs our earths weather.

  • Steffi Liao

    I have been saying the same thing – don’t let them of the hook – for I guarantee when the whole myth crumbles, they will try to slink off into the background and pretend they were not involved in perpetuating this scam. As Lord Monckton has pointed out, 12m people die every year as a result of ‘climate change policies’ (i.e. as a result of ‘the scam’) – that’s easily on a par with any war criminal.

    So I propose we draw up a list – a Top 100 list – of those criminally implicated by virtue of the impact they have on perpetuating the death and destruction. And just to start it off here’s a few names.

    Leonardo De Caprio
    Emma Thomson
    Ban Ki Moon
    Al Gore
    Sam Harris (sorry Sam – I really am)
    Hilary Clinton
    etc. etc.

    And at the top of the list, shall be written “We Will Never Forget nor Forgive”

  • Pingback: The Climate Warriors Get Blasted By A Non-Believer! We Agree! | Washington News Cloud()

  • ThisNameInUse

    More rambling, fact-free drivel from the unhinged Right. Where to begin? I know – by asking the author to make an actual, specific claim about climate change instead of just hurling around childish insults. There is nothing here.

    • Steffi Liao

      OK – one very simple question for you then – where is the evidence that CO2 drives climate change – there is none, is there?. There are only computer models. (All of which have so far been wrong).

      • ThisNameInUse

        30,000 peer reviewed papers on the subject over recent decades. Sorry, can’t post them all here. Maybe get off your rear end and get to a library.

        And the models have been stunningly correct. Repeating lies like you just did 1000 times doesn’t change reality.

    • Blocked…..another ranting lefty Troll bites the dust……

    • entropy

      Personally, I’d begin by criticising ‘rambling, fact-free drivel’ with something other than rambling, fact-free drivel.

      The author doesn’t have to make any claims to defend the status quo. You’re the one making alarmist claims about global warming: state your hypothesis and provide your evidence.

      • Dan Flynn

        Entropy, you’re a smart guy, do you think there is any cause for concern regarding fossils fuels? Let’s leave the IPCC and Al Gore out of it for a moment. I’m just interested to know if you think there is any truth that man made climate change is a problem.

        • entropy

          As I’ve previously stated in these topics, AGW is demonstrable. My body heat radiates out into the air around me, warming the environment. Is that a problem? Of course not. The questions revolve around the level of warming that is acceptable and the extent to which CO2 influences temperature.

          There are a wide spectrum of views on these issues but the only one that seems to have any traction (in the MSM, which tells you everything you need to know) is the far-left alarmist doomsday scenario. You only have to look at all the casuals here citing articles from The Daily Beast, Mashable, Washington Post, Huffington Post in the place of actual arguments to know that they’re just parroting what they’ve been told to think by the sensationalist left media.

          If we keep breeding, burning and using fossil fuels at the rate we do now, we’ll certainly suffer environmental consequences and potentially (eventually) catastrophic ones. But our interaction with the environment has never been static. We should be mindful of the environment when developing new tools and technologies, but that doesn’t mean we should sign up to the religion that is climate alarmism. It’s just another corporate interest group trying to scam you out of your money.

          • Dan Flynn

            Entropy, what a beautiful answer.
            We are in agreement. The issue for me is that people’s perception of ‘climate alarmism’ is distracting them from acknowledging the environmental consequences that you point out.
            I feel like we’re on the Titanic and the lookout guy is shouting ‘Iceberg!’ and everyone is complaining that he’s being too whiney!

          • entropy

            Happy to agree about something.

            The problem for me is that the guy shouting ‘iceberg!’ is the same guy who kept lying to us about the wolves attacking our sheep while he was trying to sell us wolf insurance and get us to subscribe to his wolf safety report.

            If the MSM was really interested in protecting the environment, it would deny climate change and everyone would immediately begin wondering what it was covering up.

          • Dan Flynn

            Hi E,
            I know this is reviving an old discussion but at least it’s one that we agreed upon somewhat.
            What do you think of Trump withdrawing from the Paris agreement?

          • entropy

            I wasn’t aware that Trump was a signatory. Do you mean the USA?

            Australia in. China in. Trump out!

            Just the usual hypocrisy from the Trump-hating left media.

  • Philip Sommer

    Knock yourself out dude, we really don’t care how you feel.

    • Steffi Liao

      wow – that was really ‘deep’.

  • trevormarr

    Fossil Fuels and Oil are the Cure, not a Curse at all!

    “Cutting off the nose to spite the face” is an expression used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem: “Don’t cut off your nose to spite your face” is a warning against acting out of pique, or against pursuing revenge in a way that would damage oneself more than the object of one’s anger.

    Go ahead and list me 10 modern, useful things that are made strictly GREEN and will not require ANY oil/fossil fuel influence in their existence!!!

    WAITING!!! NOTHING!!! We need to STOP wasting our time on this hypocrisy!

    We will always optimize/innovate the capables, we do not need to restrict our civilization only to the INCAPABLES!

    Yes we will NEVER get to the Jetsons if we hypocritically cripple our society to the capability of the Flintstones!!!

    • ThisNameInUse

      Post again with a few hundred more exclamation marks. Maybe that will make the reality of your current heat wave go away.

      • trevormarr

        What heat wave, it is Winter today (-20C) ust like it has been since the dawn of time!

      • trevormarr

        Snow here, no heat wave! Just so hypocritical, feel good, do as I say, not as I do, eco hypocrites!

  • ThisNameInUse

    Constantly shrieking “show me the evidence!” and then plunging your head in the sand impresses no one. No one of any consequence, that is. Try to grow up, grow some integrity, and embrace some reason.

  • ozonator

    Sucks to be you. I only see that you were able to correctly predict a free lunch from the ExxonKochs and whine for over a decade.

    “Adam Piggott correct AGW predictions”

    “About 5,200 results (0.76 seconds)” on 2/9/17 at ~2/10/17 1:40 UTC…0.0…1ac.2.zD_R1afVYd8

  • Hi Adam.
    Great article.
    It has really brought the ranting Lefty Troll Warmists out of their cave, hasn’t it ?

    • Adam Piggott

      Which was the entire point. After all, we want to be able to hold them to account …

  • Ben Loveday
  • Hyper Future Vision

    We all must remember one very important point: compassion is not the answer to this problem.

    Do not trust any climate change advocate that is afraid to discuss and acknowledge the problem of third world population growth as they are most likely hippies who are unable to fathom their precious minority groups being blamed for reproducing like rabbits and making their regions unlivable.

    We need to start devising strategies to avoid the fallout of third world over-population before they demand we help them. We have the ability to look ahead long term, to make decisions based upon current projections that will safeguard our descendants. We must do so immediately.

    The third world countries will be the worst affected and will naturally seek to migrate to first world countries to escape the ills of over population. We need to start preventing all people from third world countries from migrating here to prevent them building the cultural base that will demand action for the inhabitants of their ancestral homelands in the future which will inevitably be them demanding we start taking people from these countries. If we can achieve that then we an simply observe these third world countries destroy themselves without being expected to show compassion and provide aid.

    We must ensure that the people from third world countries and countries with very large populations that are already here fully assimilate into our culture so that they cannot attempt to guilt trip us into helping. I am open to any solution that will achieve this goal, special attention must also be paid to the muslim demographic within Australia as their population growth is simply unacceptable.

    First world countries also need to cease providing any aid to these regions to prevent them complaining in the future that it was us who enabled their catastrophic population growth by providing too much humanitarian relief.

    Our laws will need to be altered to account for this possibility occurring in the next 100 years so when a future refugee crises erupts we can simply advise that it is against our laws to offer any kind of assistance or provide any kind of asylum in our country.

    I believe that the UN is already aware of this impending disaster and is attempting to emotionally manipulate us into relieving the burden of a third world population calamity by offering the unwanted masses a home in our countries. This is why we must leave the UN ASAP.

    I apologise for the frequent use of “we must” but I care deeply for the environment and have faith that nature will solve this problem on her own. The populations within these over populated areas will inevitably begin warring over precious resources and will eliminate each other without western interference. Survival of the fittest means that they will actually benefit from this disaster.

    • Otipua08

      Says a guy whose environmental footprint is probably as large as several African villages.

      • Hyper Future Vision

        I recharge the batteries for the phone I wrote my comment with using a small solar panel hanging from my windowsill. I do everything I can to limit my impact on Australia’s environment but I do not judge others for their power usage, we live in a first world country with first world perks.

        We must keep these perks until fusion power is perfected, after that it will be a different ball game.

        • Otipua08

          Physics won’t wait until the next best thing conveniently appears. We are already in overshoot. Time to acknowledge that and stop digging the hole deeper!

    • RedHotScot

      There is one simple solution to your dilemma.

      Allow developing countries to generate their own fossil fuel derived energy. Help them limit particulate emissions by allowing them the right to use western IP to achieve it. Fossil fuels are the source of the West’s success and wealth, and as wealth increases, procreation declines.

      In the meantime, whilst the West attempts to insulate itself from the rest of the world by introducing carbon taxes, developing countries get poorer. Civil unrest ensues because people can’t afford to buy food.

      Vast tracts of forest on the boundaries of cities in the developing world are being decimated, turned over to short term agriculture (3 years or so) by unregulated loggers, before being consigned to desert because forest floor topsoil is thin and unproductive. So what happens to the timber? It’s sold in the towns and cities as cooking and heating fuel which emits huge volumes of particulates and kills millions of children every year from respiratory conditions.

      So whilst the West is cleaning its act up, it is simply transferring its misery to poor countries whilst denying them the right to free themselves from poverty by using fossil fuels.

      This satisfies the desires of the Club of Rome who promote population control. They couldn’t do it overtly by culling or genocide, so their ‘final solution’ was to find a means by which they can make cruel population control seem necessary, natural and acceptable.

      • Hyper Future Vision

        Appreciate your comment, but it just seems like too much effort and there is no guarantee that allowing them to become wealthier will limit their population growth. My main concern with your idea is that it will simply make these people a stronger adversary to future generations of westerners whereas simply doing nothing will allow them to destroy themselves, once this occurs westerners could possibly have an opportunity to take these regions for themselves.

        I don’t get what you mean by transferring the misery of the west to poor countries?

        I noticed your comment about CO2 starvation, what do you make of this graph?

        • RedHotScot

          This is not my idea, it is an observed phenomenon. The developing world have big families because child mortality is high and with no welfare state the only provision for old age is to have a family big enough to take care of them in their old age.

          In wealthier countries that’s not necessary and commonly available population data from numerous organisations reach the same conclusions.

          Your second paragraph is offensive. You are proposing deliberately subjecting developing countries to poverty and misery because they might represent a threat to the West. ISIS and Boko Haram (among others) are largely a reaction to that very concept, as was the Arab Spring and numerous uprisings in the Middle East and Africa. And the West have occupied many of these regions and been kicked out because of their oppressive behaviour, only for the likes of Idi Amin and Robert Mugabi to promote their own flavour of colonialism.

          When we impose carbon taxes on the planet, the West can afford them, developing countries can’t. We rid ourselves of the hair shirt but everywhere else suffers for our selfish morality. That’s what I mean by transferring misery.

          I’m no scientist, but even so, attempting to analyse a single graph is futile without the supporting data and research. Without that the graph is meaningless.

          • Hyper Future Vision

            My comment wasn’t intended to be offensive, I understand that it will probably offend the human/civil rights hippies but they will get offended at anything that doesn’t fit their authoritarian ideals.

            I believe strongly in moral relativism, what may be offensive to one person will be quite pleasing to another, so no one should need to be railed against for having an opinion that upsets others. This is why I refuse to listen to most hippies as they have deluded themselves into thinking they are the arbitrators of modern ethics when they are merely a product of their time-frame and culture.

            What I am proposing is to simply do nothing for them, not to impose anything on them. I simply want the west to leave them alone and for them to stop coming here. They have the right to follow their own destiny without western interference, they will either destroy themselves or become stronger either way I believe they should have this opportunity.

            The western world can focus on perfecting fusion techniques and expansion into the solar system whilst the third world finds its own way.

          • RedHotScot

            I don’t believe in a moral relativism that you describe. I do believe in human and civil rights. Nor am i a hippie. On the other hand, I find political correctness offensive, but I don’t believe in offending people because of their skin colour, ethnicity or religion. Having said that, I have traded racist, cultural and religious jokes with friends who are not of my WASP background. We had lots of laughs and there was no offense taken.

            “They” are not “they’s”. They are human beings with families, values, ambitions, desires etc. just like you and I. Should we consign ‘them’ to poverty, destitution and an early death? Not in my world.

            In my world we should encourage our neighbours to fish rather than giving them handouts. We should welcome, and encourage their productivity, because where prosperity flourishes, peace reigns.

            Consign them to poverty, and ISIS and Boko Haram flourish.

          • Hyper Future Vision

            Its good that you can trade racist jokes with non-whites, the most racist people I know aren’t white. I honestly believe it makes them more intelligent than most white people because they are able to objectively criticise other races/cultures without worrying they have said something wrong and ending their thought process.

            I just want a world that follows the principles of nature, I see the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to be incompatible with nature. It prevents the kind of racial conflict that accelerates evolution. The world is not meant to be a giant hippy commune.

            In nature the dominant species/race will annihilate/assimilate its opponent and then go on to the next struggle. This is what happened to Homo Neanderthalensis when Homo Sapiens arrived from Africa, they were completely assimilated into the gene pool of the newer arrivals. The neanderthals now only exist as fragments in the gene pool of all races except sub Saharan Africans. Europeans can thank our Neanderthal ancestors for our lighter features (eyes, skin, hair). It is looking likely that Asians are the end result of Homo Sapiens, homo Neanderthalensis and an early mongoloid race (most likely Denisova Hominin) interbreeding, they have a very interesting story to tell.

            We are not above nature, the UN is attempting to make first world countries believe they have some kind of god like moral imperative to disregard their own people/interests and provide humanitarian relief rather than allowing a natural admixture/annihilation event.

            It is good that you care about your neighbours, but when people start to care about their neighbours more than their own family then they become no different to selfish parents who don’t care about their own children and are unable provide undivided support and attention. I believe this is why the western world is currently experiencing am Alt-Right counter-culture movement led by the younger members of our society, they are tired of the ageing hippies/SJW’s and their altruism towards other cultures.

            I have never had a problem with ISIS, I wish them all the best creating their islamic pan-Arabian caliphate. It is their right to follow their beliefs, I just don’t want them or their islamic belief system here. We will not have to worry about islamism or their terror attacks if they don’t exist here in the first place. We could easily eliminate the problem if we weren’t held back by human/civil rights, Germany was able to create the Haavara Agreement which allowed them to transfer Jews to Palestine before WW2 – this would not have been possible if their civil rights weren’t stripped away.

      • “So whilst the West is cleaning its act up, it is simply transferring its misery to poor countries whilst denying them the right to free themselves from poverty by using fossil fuels.”

        Red, I agree with you on this.
        Western countries benefit by raping second and third world countries.
        Hi Tech items are now made mostly in China.
        The Chinese people and their entire habitable eco system are ultimately the losers, as their factories spew out vast industrial pollution, their workers commit suicide, are exploited and poisoned etc.
        (Foxconn ! Apple.)

        The clothes you are wearing might have been made in some Bangladesh shithole, where the child workers are paid $1 a day and have to endure intolerable conditions.
        On and on it goes.

        The West has achieved a very high standard of living through the chronic exploitation of poorer nations for centuries, and continues to do so.
        It is a bit rich for us to now lecture developing countries about their pollution, lack of human rights and deforrestation issues. Pot/Kettle/Black.

        Global warming is pure fabricated bullshit forced down our throats by the Greenhoaxers.
        A construct, to extract conduits of money from many different avenues and scams.
        A guilt $$$ tax imposed on Western nations,which is itself stolen in multiple international scams.

        Nature itself has a way of correcting imbalances and will do so intermittently by wiping large portions of the human race off the face of the planet.
        We are in reality, just parasites, who can be eliminated by Nature in the blink of an eye.
        Vastly overdue for a correction by Nature, in my view.

        • RedHotScot

          I’m not sure I’m a parasite however I largey agree with you but I’m not sure I would be so aggressive about it.

          My real hope is that Trump effects parity in the scientific debate on AGW. I don’t want sceptics to ‘win’ I want the debate to be balanced and founded on science rather than politics. Obama escalated the political influence and was one sided, Trump can’t mimic that lest it become an ongoing political ping pong.

          Scientists are largely ignorant of the causes of GW, never mind AGW, the subject is too big to be analysed by a computer without hundreds, if not thousands of years of reliable observed data. Right now we are guessing based on inaccurate paleoecological records, unreliable observed events going back a few hundred years, and perhaps 30 years of moderately reliable satellite data.

          In the 1970’s, my school in Scotland had a stevenson screen weather station. Random pupils were tasked with recording the daily data from it, some didn’t know one end of a thermometer from another. It was also sited directly adjacent to a wall of windows 50M long by 20M high which not only influenced temperature but shielded it from wind. It formed part of the official Met Office recording data.

          One of my best friends was a very junior officer in the merchant navy in the 1970’s. He had a grasp of secondary school science so when he was asked to take sea temperature measurements, guess what he did, he asked his tea boy to do it for him, in the full knowledge the tea boy didn’t bother looking at anything other than yesterdays recorded measurement, had a guess at how much hotter/colder it was and documented that.

          The task to understand our climate is a noble one, but political and financial influences have distorted the science beyond all reasonable bounds.

          My enduring hope is that Trump can galvanise scientists to accept that we have another few hundred years of study before we can even guess what the planet’s climate is going to do.

          Our current efforts are based on green, knee jerk reactions to short term events that frighten them. Sadly, their hysterical posturing will eventually consign them to pathetic, millennial, snowflake nutters.

          And that is a shame because they will disengage themselves from a valuable debate.

  • Dominic Stockford

    A bit rude, but wonderful. Thank you for this.

  • justmeanu

    Religion is a hard thing to kill.

  • Glenn Martin

    BWAHAHAHAHA! I congratulate you! You’ve blown past denier to create a new category; the “climate fantacist”!

  • Brad Stephan

    Ha ha… Next they are going to say we are making the planet cold by putting too much carbon into the atmosphere and blocking the sun

  • Leslie Graham

    Good grief! This is 2017 and still we get ludicrous garbage like the above.
    Not worth debunking for the nth time but I will say that, now the effects of climate change have become an obvious everyday reality all over the world, the last of the deniers just sound completely unhinged.
    It’s over guys. You have been totally and utterly routed by simple reality. Grow a pair and face up to it.

    • bvee

      nth time? n=0

    • Looking at the posts in your Profile Leslie, I cannot help but notice you seem obsessed with Global Warming, which was name changed to Climate Change, which will probably become Unexplained Weather Anomalies, or some such.

      Step back and do some real analysis, rather than basking in Warmist hysteria.

      Your last sentence is telling :
      “Grow a pair and face up to it.”

      Why do Warmists threaten and belittle anyone who holds a differing viewpoint ?
      Do you want to burn me at the stake, as a heretic, because I believe this Warmist frenzy is totally irrational ?
      Honest answer, please. Show your true colours.

  • bvee

    wish i could post this on my fb. so good.

  • Roger Lambert

    AGW a scam?!?

    You are all a bunch of delusional morons if you actually believe such malarkey. You need to see a psychiatrist. Seriously. S.E.R.I.O.U.S.L.Y.

    It’s not rocket science, chuckleheads. You burn carbon, you get CO2. CO2 has a VERY long atmospheric half-life. It reflects escaping heat back to the Earth. Hence warming. If you can not accept this – you are a moron.

    When you do the math, you will see that the number of barrels of oil plus the quantity of natural gas and coal burned, minus ocean absorption, accounts exactly for the increase in atmospheric CO2. The stoichiochemistry adds up. Radioactive carbon profiles show this CO2 has only been added recently. Humankind did this. All of it.

    You Einsteins prefer to accept that every climate scientist on the entire planet, every single scientific organization on the planet, nearly every clear-thinking individual person on the planet outside of the U.S. is foolishly involved in a gigantic conspiracy (good f***ing grief, guys!) rather than to accept that you are – just as you likely never were – very good at thinking. Admit it – any of you geniuses EVER get good grades in science classes? Didn’t think so.

    WTF do you think happens to all those billions of tons of CO2 coming out of our chimneys and exhaust pipes?!? Do you think it just disappears? Goes to Cloud CuckooLand?

    And now you titanic irresponsible a**holes are getting all testy about things?!? You don’t like being treated like moronic a**holes? You all are gonna do something about it? F*** You.

    • Hyper Future Vision

      Don’t worry old man, it will hurt the third world more than the western world.

      The impending disaster can work to our advantage of we plan it right, read my comments below 🙂

      The hippies can cry and sook about being ignored but they bought that onto themselves by attempting to force their filthy hippy ideals onto the rest of us.

      Why don’t you guys come up with a solution that doesn’t rely on taxing the shit out of first world countries.

    • Deplorable Steve

      Don’t blame us for your small penis Roger…

      • Roger Lambert

        I don’t – i blame my parents for that. I blame you all for being abject idiots about a most important issue, though.

  • Dale Smith

    Damn! What world do you live in, Piggott? You are right that one side will be ashamed of its stance when the truth is finally incontrovertible. And it will be your side because anyone with a rudimentary understanding of science can see that.

    “You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity.”

    Oh the irony!

    • Hyper Future Vision

      Understanding science is useless if your mind has been contaminated by hippy idealism.

      • Dale Smith

        Understanding science is always useful. It helps one to avoid “hippy idealism” or “conservative ideology”.

  • Bobd06

    Good commentary. Waiting for the fall of this scam for decades. When the funding dries up it will be over, but they will not go away quietly. Here in Canada we have a moron for a PM, Trudeau, totally bought into the “science” wants to impose a carbon tax just when Trump is elected and the US will pivot away from the scam. We are done unless we can push him out.

    • Canada. What have you done ? How on Earth did Trudeau get elected ?
      Canada emits only 2% of the world’s carbon emissions from the consumption of energy,
      Minuscule, but I suppose Green-hoaxing was a good election platform to get him into power.

  • Steve

    I never heard of Adam until 5 minutes ago…he is now my new favorite writer!!!

  • hah, warmists…read this and weep….climate scientists faking the data…

    • Roger Lambert

      You really need to read for comprehension. That whistleblower said nothing about data being faked. In fact, he said that he was afraid deniers would take what he said out of context – and behold! You did. Well done. 🙁

      • Roger,
        I’m sorry, but not surprised, that Warmists are unable to contribute to discussion on the Climate Hoax in a rational way.
        Warmists are as free from brains as a frog from feathers.

        Comprehension ? My comprehension is fine, thank you.

        If you take the time to read through the article and peruse the embedded links, the “whistleblower” clearly states that his fellows manipulated weather data.

        There are a plethora of articles, and proof abounds, regarding “Scientists” manipulating climate data to keep their scientific “research” $$$$$$ gravy trains going, ad infinitum.

        And please don’t ask me to “prove it”…do the research yourself, it wont take more than a minute.

        As far as credibility of American publications goes, I imagine you might be more suited to subscribing to the noisome tripe that the rabid left wing Washington Post or New York Times defecates onto the US reading public.

  • Pingback: Reblogging: Dear Climate Alarmists – We Will Never Forget nor Forgive. | Climate Change Sanity()

  • Maryanne

    It’s a religion, Adam and they BELIEVE. I have fun asking believers how much CO2 they think is in the atmosphere – 20%, 60% 10%? and they all admit they don’t know but most think it’s probably between 10 and 20%. When I tell them it’s actually 0.04% they look very confused – but their faith is not shaken.

  • kencoffman

    I could not have said it better. The manipulative creeps will move on to the next totalitarian scheme to save the world…but we’re onto them and, over time, we’ll defeat them there too.

  • Scotrates

    Awesome blog post! Wholeheartedly agree.

  • Chris Ray

    Adam Piggott is a man after my own heart , I’ve had many of the same experiences with my peers. Can’t match him for his satire and ridicule of the “warmists” however.

  • Ah, Global Warming…..I’m willing to take 3 Penguin refugees into my home, when Antarctica finally melts.
    Who’s with me ?

  • OTRDefender

    I’m guessing they’re all the sitting in a room somewhere attempting to come up with another term to make their scam relevant again..

    The Greenhouse Effect
    Global Warming
    Climate Change

    You scare the people, you control the people..

    • Remember the Ozone Layer scare ?
      I think we will get a “giant asteroid” hitting Earth scare soon.