Global Warming And Climate Change Rhetoric

• John Coleman slams global warming (1)
• John Coleman slams global warming (2)
• John Coleman slams global warming (3)
• John Coleman slams global warming (4) 
• Gore sued by 30,000 scientists - link has been deleted
• Gore slammed by congress

• Greenhouse gases cool the Earth

There is no denying that climate change is happening - it has happened before. What is challenged by many (DA included) - an informed minority - is that the cause is definitely mankind. This focusses only on the blame issue and that all mankind must be punished (though not commercial businesses). The financial yield has been $trillions and there is no indication that the cash cow will dry up.

The attempted route to the demanded conclusion is very predictable.

The debate continues to polarise. Each defends their own belief, but it appears that within the alternative view there is very great contention by being closed down and so denying the opportunity to broadcast the other side of the debate. One arm waving. The apparent conclusion is then that the entire world shares the opinions of people like Gore since the other side is never heard and so does not even exist. Gore and his supporters may be correct or not in their assertions, but to attempt gagging opponents shows that the argument is lost. Any possible support is also lost.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and supports the concepts of alleged global warming and alleged climate change, but is not the alleged cause of it. The political position, as always with politics, is grotesquely patronising by attempting to browbeat opponents. The next phase will presumably be the conspiracy theory ploy. If the case cannot be made through debate and logic then the ridicule approach will be brought into play. This would be the classical approach. After that would come the necessary protests as this would remain the only way for opponents to air their counter opinions publically and that, of course, alienates discussion from closed minds. This would be desirable as it appears to strengthen the righteous. The definition of protesting opponents suggests a violent positional stance. Orchestrated (by governments) riots  visibly repelled by the state troopers (police) would be provided to engender even greater misguided public support. In the meantime, nothing happens and attention is systematically diverted away from the original cause. Grotesque amounts of money are condemned to the... wherever... and the whole global warming issue will be encouraged to fade. Global cooling will start and nobody will notice except those who protested aloud. And louder and loudest. The likes of Gore and Branson may even finally be silenced.

Gore may even be sincere, but attempting to silence critics, and there are many of those, suggests that the debate has been lost as he realises he is wrong. Gore cannot now turn back as he has committed his hand. But then the campaign against global cooling will begin. This is probably already being rehearsed ready for a showing. Imagine: Gore and all the proponents for these issues leading the charge...

Nobel Peace Award In Defense Of A Lie

Similar to the financial system scam. The failed system subverted to a public support that denies the reality. This all resembles the witch hunts (in mediaeval days) or those who refused to follow the doctrines of the church that the Earth was the centre of the universe. The ducking stool scenario: telling the truth results in drowning and survival demonstrates guilt. Life is then terminated by fire as being a witch is 'proven' as evidenced by the fact that drowning did not happen.

The alternative view, which I fully endorse, is that the 'accepted' case remains unproven. This is a consequence of the logical science viewpoint that does NOT involve politics. Just truth and cold and objective logic. Not hot, highly emotive and subjective rhetoric. I have no axe to grind, but I do expect grown up debate of good quality. The pit into which all this is descending does not entertain honesty, but simply winning a polarised argument. Whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter. The ego just needs to 'win' all the money.

Personally, I am content to accept defeat if I (and all the other opponents) am shown to be wrong. If I am right, then silence will be the order of the day as I am not naïve and expect any parading of shame from those so vociferously favouring the argument of carbon dioxide and the exclusive human causation.