A Lacis,
I wonder if you could point me to experimental verification of the seemingly outlandish notion that surrounding an object with CO2 causes its temperature to rise?
So called climate scientists seem to be endlessly preoccupied with divining the future, with little to no apparent success to date. It might appear to an outsider that multi million computers and multi million dollar research grants provide as much assistance as chicken entrails or used tea leaves do, in relation to ascertaining the future.
I cannot see any demonstrated benefit accruing to mankind from studying the average of weather, which study seems to be restricted to the temperature parameter in any case. You may be able to indicate some breakthroughs in climate research, or even point to the achievements of individual towering intellects in the field. I see none to date.
On the other hand, a tried and true Warmist tactic is to merely apply a belittling label – denier, crackpot, delayer, and so on – to anyone who asks you to back up your bizarre unsubstantiated assertions with a modicum of fact. This tactic is proving less and less effective, as economic circumstances are forcing governments to consider the relative disbursement of ever scarcer funds between the war on climate change, the war on terror, the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and so on.
The prospect of starving in terror in the dark, whilst climatologists rub their hands with glee at their latest multi billion dollar computer acquisition, is unlikely to enthuse the general public who provide your funding.
Don’t you think the hand that feeds you deserves to be treated with respect rather than disdain?
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
