Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (34)
All aboard the United Nations “last chance” gravy train, COP22. Hurry, you hippies, hucksters and hallucinogenic fellow travellers, hurry. Be quick, if you want a free ride on the Marrakech Express.
Hallucinogen: A drug that causes profound distortions in a person’s perceptions of reality. People often see images, hear sounds, and feel sensations that seem real but do not exist. Some hallucinogens produce rapid and intense emotional swings, as seen last week in certain cohorts in North America, especially after passage (56 to 44 percent) of California Proposition 64 legalising adult use of recreational marijuana in that state.
Could there be a more appropriate location than this exotic Moroccan city — immortalised by Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young in the 1960s — to celebrate the global ambitions of the UN’s Climate Caliphate? The intention is surely noble: two weeks getting high on self-congratulation, other people’s money, junk science and the eco-worrier’s favourite over-the-counter drug, DAGW (dangerous anthropogenic global warming), now rebranded as DACC (dangerous anthropogenic climate change) to entrench public credulity.
Climate-caliphate: 1. Entity led by a climate-caliph, generally an eco-zealot, ex-politician or career bureaucrat turned climate-control propagandist. 2. Global climate-caliphate: theocratic one-world government or de facto government. 3. Any ideology or aspiration promoted by a militant fossil fuel free sect, or ‘champion of the Earth’, such as UNEP. 4. Any radical group intending to behead, disembowel, or otherwise degrade Western economies with the two-edged sword of wealth redistribution (aka ‘climate reparations’) and ‘decarbonisation’, while reciting mantras about sustainability, slow-onset events and saving the planet. Also known as Agenda 21.
Last week’s unscheduled arrival of the US Great Again train has, however, upset the Programme. It was arguably a black swan event— “the biggest FU in human history”, according to Michael Moore (video here).
As the news reverberated around the world, the climate establishment was shocked to discover that not all swans are white and female. So perhaps it also could be the case that not all “extreme weather events”, or global temperature fluctuations, have much to do with a few hundred parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, if anything.
For many COP22 delegates, the clock of catastrophe suddenly shifted much closer to midnight. “A third of the people here are walking around like zombies, like the walking dead, not sure what to do,” said UC Berkeley Professor Daniel Kammen, speaking from Morocco. Many believe the honeymoon is over.
Shock and disbelief marked Bab Ighli, the venue of the UN-sponsored climate meet. Even as delegates sought to retain an air of normalcy virtually every conversation turned to Trump, and what the elevation of a climate denier to the White House meant for the global efforts to tackle climate change. (GWPF)
That sound you can hear is not only the gnashing of teeth and blowing of pot-smoke. It is also the scurrying hither and thither of thousands of bureaucrats in a race against time. They are on an earnest mission to capture the chaos and complexity of the planet’s climate in a net of jargon so opaque it will bamboozle even the most erudite disciple of truth and transparency.
UNFCCC’s language is designed to give an appearance of solidity to nebulous “climate change”. But in a way that is bound to ensure the West is liable for all “loss and damage” – yet undefined – from any meteorological event that disrupts life in the developing world.
A recent addition to the UN’s Orwellian climate lexicon is the “slow-onset event”. It is bound to be useful to those involved with COP19’s Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts; “the main vehicle under the Convention to promote the implementation of approaches to address loss and damage in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner.”
Meanwhile, spare a thought for Senator John Kerry, one of the architects of last year’s Paris Agreement, as he tries to salvage something from the wreckage. With the political ground shifting under him, Kerry appeared – not in Marrakech but – tweeting from Antarctica, presumably a welcome change from the heat in Washington.
Here in #Antarctica w/ some of the world’s top researchers. The science is clear: #climatechange is real, and we ignore it at our own peril. (November 13, 2016)
Climate change directly impacts everyone across all seven continents. We all must do our part to #ActOnClimate.” (November 11, 2016)
Headed to #Antarctica to see firsthand some of the drastic effects of #climatechange. Many thanks to @NSF for making this trip possible. (November 10, 2016)
Today the #ParisAgreement goes into effect. Proud of this step taken by the int’l community & energized to keep up work on #climatechange. (November 4, 2016)
For those who came in late, the UN is chasing climate-dollars through two channels, the Korean-based UNFCCC Green Climate Fund and Nairobi-based UNEP. With regard to the former, as Tony Thomas explained last week here:
Trump has pledged not only to rip up the Paris deal, but to withdraw all US climate funding to the UN. The UN climate fund is supposed to build to $100b a year for Third World mendicants. Obama has given $500m so far and pledged $3 billion to the UN Green Climate Fund, but Trump will divert those billions to domestic environmental projects such as the Florida Everglades.
The sheer scale of UNEP’s ambition and activities are even more significant, as I explained here. In the weird world of environmental politics, the UN sees no conflict of interest in one powerful body and its agencies being responsible for collecting data, concocting ‘projections’ and ‘storylines’ and developing policy; while simultaneously funding and encouraging advocacy groups to pressure governments to design or modify renewable energy (RE) and carbon-pricing regulations in its favour. Why not? Well, the ultimate beneficiaries, surely, are humankind and the planet – not huge ticket-clipping pension funds (some with significant RE sector exposure) and career climate-bureaucrats.
Perhaps it is just as well an entity that claims to have the power to induce a global Goldilocks climate and manipulate the planet’s thermostat is protected by legal immunity under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations; especially if its ‘best available science’ cannot make genuine predictions.
The UN’s latest initiatives are instructive in this context. On October 7 this year, Bank of Mexico Governor, Agustín Carstens, and UNFCCC Chief, Patricia Espinosa, posted an editorial in the agency’s Climate Change Newsroom: “Paris will soon enter into force, now we need to move the money.” Some of the US$90 trillion they want to move by 2030 could be from your pension fund.
The cost of making the transition to a low-carbon future is measured in trillions. This quickly takes us far beyond the realm of public funds since no government – no matter how rich – can finance climate action through taxation and borrowing alone. One estimate suggests that around US $90 trillion will need to be invested by 2030 in infrastructure, agriculture and energy systems, to accomplish the Paris Agreement.
This won’t happen without private capital and underlines why aligning the world’s financial system with the needs of climate action and sustainable development is every bit as important as emission reduction pathways and removing fossil fuel subsidies. Moreover, set against the US$300 trillion of assets – held by banks, the capital markets and institutional investors – we’re faced with a problem of allocation rather than outright scarcity.
As for UNEP, it just released its annual “emissions gap” report at COP22. Comparing the goals of Paris 2015 to signatory pledges, it uses all the alarmist rhetoric one would expect from an agency that is the 43-year-old brainchild of the late Maurice Strong. Unless reductions in “carbon pollution from the energy sector are reduced swiftly and steeply”, UNEP claims that it will be nearly impossible to keep warming below 2 degrees, let alone to the 1.5 degree aspiration.
According to UNEP the need for urgent, immediate action to confront the “climate crisis” is “indisputable.” And yes, you guessed it. We are all drinking in the Last Chance Saloon.
It is likely the last chance to keep the option of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C in 2100 open, as all available scenarios consistent with the 1.5 degree C goal imply that global greenhouse gases peak before 2020.
As to the source of UNEP’s 2-degree threshold, it remains a mystery, at least to me. Is it a best-guess algorithm from a flawed computer model, or the emphatic conclusion of a new law of nature? Perhaps that is why more and more climate scientists seem to be emoting like tearful Cassandras. Alternatively, they may be merely desperate to be acknowledged as champions of the earth too. Expressing one’s feelings about the future in public, however, does not in any way validate DAGW or DACC. Anyway, folk in northern Russia would welcome some extra warmth right now.
Last week’s collision between the Trump Train and Marrakech Express should slow down – maybe even derail – the UN’s relentless two-decade climate scare campaign. If it does the latter, there may not be enough hens on the planet to lay all the eggs required to go on the faces of all the folk who promulgated this narrative with such sanctimonious certainty.
Perhaps there is a god or goddess after all. If so, one of His or Her ninety-nine names just might be – if not Veritas, then – Serpens Oleum. Let us pray.
I, for one, am glad to see that the scaremongers are feeling jittery. It’s about time that a national leader took a stance at this world wide scam that has leached billions, borrowed in our case, to perpetuate their greedy needs. What a pity some of that money didn’t go towards housing refugees in those squalid camps, some being there for years, that any nation would be ashamed of. Or vaccinating people of poor countries against treatable diseases.
You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know that the climate will inevitably change but the question is – to what? It’s been shown time and again that the loudest voices are those who have manipulated data to suit their agenda. Many of them not even qualified to do so. I always look for the money trail. Think of all the money already wasted by our own CSIRO. And they wonder why people are getting sick and tired of their ravings!
> “As to the source of UNEP’s 2-degree threshold, it remains a mystery, at least to me”
I remember a threaded comment on Steve McIntyre’s website (Climate Audit) a while back, wherein the commenter stated that he had been in the room at the time (one of those ubiquitous meetings of the Noble Cause Corruption clique)when this 2C threshold was promulgated. In essence, there was no scientific evidence used or required, merely a series of negotiated positions based on what was considered politically palatable to various western governments.
A good summary, Michael Kyle.
One of the most welcome, heartening prospects of the forthcoming Trump presidency is that he will put a decisive end to the cripplingly costly climate alarmism madness. He could hardly do a greater service to the welfare of humanity than that.
Cue: Ian MacDougall. (I hope I’m not putting you off Ian.)
MSM reporting from Marrakesh, aka COP22, has become quite minimal. So people became curious.
It appears that it may have developed into a political disaster. Developing countries are baulking at being charged billions of dollars for construction of renewabubbles, while developed countries, including Aus, are baulking at giving them billions of dollars to enable the construction of said renewabubbles.
Source ?
Business Standard India website for Nitin Sethi’s end of Summit article. That something unhappy for our green friends is occurring is measured by the fact that this website, accessible for years, now suddenly has a “DNS not found” error message over the last 24 hours. The information I’ve supplied above is all pre November 20th.
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/nations-take-forward-global-climate-action-at-2016-un-climate-conference/
In the desert there are mirages. At UN climate conferences there is “unstoppable momentum”. COP22 seems to be no exception. Full steam ahead towards 2018 and completion of The Rule Book.
Bill,
Why poke the bear? Ian McD is wounded, but unless you have a silver bullet, a wooden stake an garlic he will be back online telling, nay, preaching to us that we will all be dead (from drowning) in a mere 10,000 years (or so).
So, let me get the unanswered questions out of the way up front.
1. What is the ideal global average temperature we seek? As we are at 15C and we want to restrict warming to 1.5C it surely must be 16.5C? If so what is the basis for that figure an why is it better than any other figure? Oh, there isn’t any basis? Of course not, as there does not need to be any basis or rational reason as this is not how post-modern science is done. Personal view? 20C would be great, but I am sure the ‘bear’ can tell us why this is not a good idea.
2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? We are at 400ppm and at 250ppm plants starve and stop growing, so you would think the post-modern cultists woul nominate that it must be somewhere in-between these two numbers. Well, you would think …, but this is not how post-modern science is done. Actually, the answer is 2,000ppm+ as the combination of warmth and CO2 fertiliser will green the Earth.
Thanks to all the extra CO2 driven global warming heat hiding in the Marianas Trench (in post-modern science warm water sinks to the bottom) there has been no increase in temperature for 20+ years (despite increasing CO2). So, with only one of the two factors in play, the Earth is greening. But keep your eye on 10,000 years from now and sea level rises making for an execrable Hollywood Waterworld movie.
Now, THAT is how post-modern science is done.
For those of us unfortunate to read our Foreign Minister’s cliché ridden zombie speech, apparently Oz is going to charge over the CAGW cliff to make the point that we really are stupid. Few, if any will follow our lead as kleptocrats are greedy for gravy, but not as stupid as our pollie wafflers and globalists.
Those invested into the Contrarian Order of the Skeptical Dunny Can (COSDC) have serious responsibilities, and high standards to maintain. Setting up of straw men and then proceeding to knock them down betrays that high responsibility, particularly when perpetrated by ‘en passant’ (COSDC and bar) or whatever his real name is.
I hereby challenge you ‘en passant’ (or whatever your real name is) to show where I have said anything like the above.
And BTW, a list of the 197 scientific organisations, including the CSIRO, which endorse the AGW hypothesis is to be found at https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Hello Ian. While en passant exaggerated regarding your concern over sea level rise, you continue to ignore his questions. I personally object to your collective derogatory labeling of those of us who disagree with you.
I now refer to the lengthy dispute between you, en passant and others following the article “Trump’s Brazen Insight” by Peter Smith on 18/11/2016. On the strength of your contributions to that debate it seems quite obvious that there is absolutely no point in engaging you on the subject matter. Consequently, I shall refrain from doing so in future. Perhaps others will follow suite.
> “Perhaps others will follow suite”
Yes. Already done – it’s pointless.
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad. What, all of us? Yes.
And BTW, a list of the 197 scientific organisations, including the CSIRO, which endorse the AGW hypothesis is to be found at https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Among the 197 on the list who accept that [all?] “climate change has been caused by human action” are some interesting entities: American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians, American Academy of Pediatrics, Cameroon Academy of Science, and so on and so forth.
When professor of physics in Berlin in the early 1930s, Einstein received a list from “A Hundred Authors against Einstein”.
“Why one hundred?” he asked. “If I was wrong, one would have been enough.”
For Einstein, scientific truth is not decided by consensus.
Perhaps just one of the 197 could show the world the evidence that proves the above causal claim.
And these learned societies did NOT poll their members before their Executives pontificated in public. This act of gross discourtesy to their members caused no end of strife in a large number of these organisations, including high-profile resignations after many years of scholarly membership. For myself, I resigned from the Geological Society of Australia after 30+ years of continuous membership over exactly this issue. The GSA has since reneged and re-issued a statement of equivocation over the issue (not due to my actions, I hasten to add).
(I wish it was in my power to appoint someone a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS). When one is made FRS, it is customary to drop all other letters after one’s name. Hence the late and great philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell FRS.)
And for that magnanimous gesture, ianl or whatever your real name is, you IMHO deserve to become ianl COCO: Companion of the Order of Climate Ostriches.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Geologists-climate-change-denial.html
HOWEVER, I will concede that there is a small, likely microscopic chance that the alleged Great Climate Conspiracy has lasooed the
geologists of the world, corrupting them with research grant money, but not sufficient to outweigh the money making up the incomes of those in the mining industry.
> “And these learned societies did NOT poll their members before their Executives pontificated in public”
What is there about that sentence you don’t grasp ? Your incomprehension seems to be showing its’ slip again.
> “The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation”
That sentence is at your level. You don’t even do leftoid puffery well, and that’s kindergarten level stuff.
And as promised to Bill Martin, end of the MacDougall story for me. It really is pointless.
Ian McD,
my only comment to you in future will be to repeat the two questions I have boringly asked you until you answer. The fluff with which you distract all arguments by appeals to the authority of such as the “Cameroon Academy of Science” (snuffle, smirk) and the Colorado Beach Developers Sea Level Rise University will simply be (yawn) accepted as the price you paid to become misguided.
Actually, I did not exaggerate. I deliberately used satirical hyperbowl to make a point (and yes, I can spell {but not type} better than most). The point was (roll of drums …): the climate con will not last much longer thanks to a new hero of the global reality show.
Now answer the two questions: what is the Holy Climate Grail you seek?
Noted.
‘en passant’ (COSDC and bar):
I take it that in your view the support of the Cameroon Academy of Science for any statement, no matter which other organisations might also be in support of that statement, is enough cause for instant dismissal of the whole of lot of it.
Well, I must confess that I haven’t the foggiest about the details of the qualifications of its members, and for all I know, there might be very eminently qualified people among them, up to and including a winner or two perhaps of a prestigious award like a Nobel.
However, you ‘en passant’ (COSDC and bar) clearly assume from the very name Cameroon Academy of Science that the qualification abilities and standards of its members must by that very fact be pretty abysmal.
Well, obviously you have not travelled much. And from that remark alone, I would say not only that you are a 24-carat ignoramus, but pretty clearly a prize racist as well.
And if there was an international prize for crass ignorance, I would nominate you ‘en passant’ (COSDC* and bar with snuffle and smirk) as an outstanding starter for it.
*COSDC refers to the Contrarian Order of the Skeptical Dunny Can. To date, the one holder of this prestigious award is our very own ‘en passant’ (or whatever his real name is).
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/11/award-winning-peter-boyer-attacks-myron-ebell-but-who-has-an-open-mind-and-who-is-in-denial/
“Keep an open mind. Think about the nearest nuclear reactor, eight minutes away as the photon flies, that is 300,000 times bigger than Earth.”
A propos Upton Sinclair and human motivation, perhaps the bigger bucks are not made in mining at all, but by our climate Jeremiahs and their acolytes.
Alice,
Being the big bucks mainstream science supporter that I am gives me no end of bother. I always have mining barons bugging me for loans.
Gina is never off the phone!
The unanswered questions that Ian McD cannot or will not answer. What is so hard about telling us all the Holy Climate Grail you seek:
1. What is the ideal global average temperature we seek? As we are at 15C and we want to restrict warming to 1.5C it surely must be 16.5C? If so what is the basis for that figure an why is it better than any other figure? Oh, there isn’t any basis? Of course not, as there does not need to be any basis or rational reason as this is not how post-modern science is done. Personal view? 20C would be great, but I am sure Ian McD can tell us why this is not a good idea.
2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? We are at 400ppm and at 250ppm plants starve and stop growing, so you would think the post-modern cultists would determine that it must be somewhere in-between these two numbers. Well, you would think …, but this is not how post-modern science is done. Actually, the answer is 2,000ppm+ as the combination of warmth and CO2 fertiliser will green the Earth.
I went to your Jo Nova link.
She betrays no recognition in all her stuff that the Earth is now warming relatively rapidly, IMHO best INDICATED by the present rate of glacial melting and (largely consequential) sea level rise. (This also threatens the fresh water supplies of Asian people dependent on the glacier-fed rivers coming off the Himalayan Plateau.)
In other words, her mind is closed: presumably because short-term business perspectives must necessarily trump (pun accidental but totally appropriate) the futures to be had by any children or grandchildren of hers. This is also IMHO the most likely reason for the strong general correlation between AGW denialism and right-wing politics.
Business must go on as usual, come what may.
.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
The unanswered questions that Ian McD cannot or will not answer. What is so hard about telling us all the Holy Climate Grail you seek:
1. What is the ideal global average temperature we seek? As we are at 15C and we want to restrict warming to 1.5C it surely must be 16.5C? If so what is the basis for that figure an why is it better than any other figure? Oh, there isn’t any basis? Of course not, as there does not need to be any basis or rational reason as this is not how post-modern science is done. Personal view? 20C would be great, but I am sure Ian McD can tell us why this is not a good idea.
2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? We are at 400ppm and at 250ppm plants starve and stop growing, so you would think the post-modern cultists would determine that it must be somewhere in-between these two numbers. Well, you would think …, but this is not how post-modern science is done. Actually, the answer is 2,000ppm+ as the combination of warmth and CO2 fertiliser will green the Earth.
‘en passant’ (COSDC and bar):
1. If you want 20C, then why not move to the Sahara?
2. Suggest you try this in a greenhouse of your own first. 2,000 ppm CO2, and move in permanently, with no exits allowed. At any stage.
3. See how you go.
(snuffle, smirk)
Ian,
To (seriously) answer your three ‘McDougallisms’ (similar to, but not to be mistaken for McGonaglisms).
1. I live in the tropics where the temperature ranges from 24C – 34C. So, I always enjoy above 20C. No, the Sahara is not a necessary location as the lack of rain and CO2 has denuded it of trees and greenery (with both of which I am surrounded). You knew that from previous comments, so first score to me, I believe?
2. I would be happy to live with a mere 2,000ppm of CO2. In fact, I am working as hard as I can to increase the CO2 concentration. Will it be harmful to me? Er, No. “To help you out, please note that US nuclear armed submarines operate with a CO2 level up to 8,000ppm for extended periods without harm to the sailors breathing it. The USN has set a maximum limit of 12,000ppm before they become concerned, so no doubt that still contains a safety margin.” Happy now? Another win to me against the dark forces of unreason that you represent.
3. See point 2.
I have answered your questions, so for the sixth time:
The unanswered questions that Ian McD cannot or will not answer. What is so hard about telling us all the Holy Climate Grail you seek:
1. What is the ideal global average temperature we seek? As we are at 15C and we want to restrict warming to 1.5C it surely must be 16.5C? If so what is the basis for that figure an why is it better than any other figure? Oh, there isn’t any basis? Of course not, as there does not need to be any basis or rational reason as this is not how post-modern science is done. Personal view? 20C would be great, but I am sure Ian McD can tell us why this is not a good idea.
2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? We are at 400ppm and at 250ppm plants starve and stop growing, so you would think the post-modern cultists would determine that it must be somewhere in-between these two numbers. Well, you would think …, but this is not how post-modern science is done. Actually, the answer is 2,000ppm+ as the combination of warmth and CO2 fertiliser will green the Earth.
This will continue to follow every comment you make on any subject, so why not get it out of the way by answering it?
You should do some homework mate. Greenhouses do not heat up because of CO2 concentration. They heat up because the glass allows radiant energy to enter but prevents heat to escape via convection. The CO2 concentration has nothing to do with it.
noun: ENVY
1.a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by someone else’s possessions, qualities, or luck.
2.a person or thing that inspires envy.
verb
1.desire to have a quality, possession, or other desirable thing belonging to (someone else).
Let me tell you something. Trump needs to work very hard to reverse the idea of man-made climate change. In Australia the infiltration is astounding. They are in the public service. They are in the media. And they are in the energy companies. You are not getting this. Twenty years ago the electricity sector was run by grey haired engineers. Boring. Owned by the government. Now there are people who are activists in this sector. There is no other label to give them. There is almost an argument here that the power stations in Aust should never have been privatised. At lease with unionised state-owned power stations they were untouchable. Marginally more expensive but not much more. Now we see with South Australia and Hazelwood it may well have been a mistake.
You definitely have a problem.
Stalin would have dealt with it by indoctrination from an early age, and those with corrupted minds sent off to Siberia.
But the dogs have barked, and the caravan has moved on.
Ian,
The unanswered questions that Ian McD cannot or will not answer. What is so hard about telling us all the Holy Climate Grail you seek:
1. What is the ideal global average temperature we seek? As we are at 15C and we want to restrict warming to 1.5C it surely must be 16.5C? If so what is the basis for that figure an why is it better than any other figure? Oh, there isn’t any basis? Of course not, as there does not need to be any basis or rational reason as this is not how post-modern science is done. Personal view? 20C would be great, but I am sure Ian McD can tell us why this is not a good idea.
2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? We are at 400ppm and at 250ppm plants starve and stop growing, so you would think the post-modern cultists would determine that it must be somewhere in-between these two numbers. Well, you would think …, but this is not how post-modern science is done. Actually, the answer is 2,000ppm+ as the combination of warmth and CO2 fertiliser will green the Earth.
This will follow every comment you make on any subject until you provide your answer.
Have a nice day.
EP:
“No, the Sahara is not a necessary location as the lack of rain and CO2 [???????] has denuded it of trees and greenery.”
Well, that is certainly a new one on me.
But… you live and learn.
The cost of electricity in Australia up until the mid 1990s when it was run by the state governments was almost the cheapest in the world. Now after 20 years of Commonwealth government meddling it is almost the most expensive in the world.
An Australian journal should have a better understanding of the concept of “Black Swan” than that, given our history/fauna.
“A Black Swan” was used as an example of something that was considered impossible, based on a quote from Juvenal…until Black Swans were discovered by the Dutch in OZ, changing the meaning of the phrase to something deemed impossible that happens anyway. Taleb didn’t add to the meaning until this century: and frankly hasn’t added much.
Ian McD,
You really are a piece of work. Not good work but one of those Leftoid trolls that infect the internet.
You said of me: “1. Well, obviously you have not travelled much. And from that remark alone, I would say not only that you are a 24-carat ignoramus, but pretty 2. clearly a prize racist as well.”
1. in my working life I travelled to an spent at least a week in 65 countries, including Cameroon, Angola, Congo, Nigeria – an probably some I have forgotten. Once more you are right, I haven’t travelled to the same planets as you. Who is looking foolish now? So let me provide your obvious answer “You may have been in 65 countries, but did you learn anything about them?” Well, yes, as sometimes I was the only non-indigenous person on-site… I expect an apology.
2. I am a racist? Ah, the last resort of the Leftoid scum. I suppose I cannot deny it, though I would point out that I have been married for the past 41 years to a wonderful Asian lady. I suppose it is possible to be married to people you despise, but as I have never spoken to your wife I have not yet checked out this theory. In my case I expect an abject apology as accusing someone of racism without the slightest evidence is even pretty low for you. I will pass your comment on to my wife an children so they can see the sort of Leftoid ignorance they may face from a White Australian WASP of Scottish descent. Pity Cumberland did not do a better job of clearing the Highland tribes between 1746 – 1845.
Here again are the unanswered questions that you cannot or will not answer.
What is so hard about telling us all the destination of the Holy Climate Grail you seek:
1. What is the ideal global average temperature we seek? As we are at 15C and we want to restrict warming to 1.5C it surely must be 16.5C? If so what is the basis for that figure an why is it better than any other figure? Oh, there isn’t any basis? Of course not, as there does not need to be any basis or rational reason as this is not how post-modern science is done. Personal view? 20C would be great, but I am sure Ian McD can tell us why this is not a good idea.
2. What is the ideal concentration of CO2? We are at 400ppm and at 250ppm plants starve and stop growing, so you would think the post-modern cultists would determine that it must be somewhere in-between these two numbers. Well, you would think …, but this is not how post-modern science is done. Actually, the answer is 2,000ppm+ as the combination of warmth and CO2 fertiliser will green the Earth.
These questions will follow every comment you make on any subject until you provide your answer.