I was just looking around to see what news there had been worth reading and I came across a UK Daily Mail article.
Unlocking the origins of global warming: Scientists pinpoint signs of climate change as early as 1940…and it began in Africa
After starting to read the latest comments I went to view what the top rated commenters, had said. And as I noticed commenter and commenter expressly stating the temperature data had been produced fraudulently (or similar terms), I realised that it is now commonly accepted by the public commenting on these blogs that the climate extremists producing these global warming figures are doing so dishonestly.
To use a metaphor … the sharks are clearly circling the climate extremists … one slip, one cut, one droplet of blood and I’ve no doubt they will be in for the kill.

Now that even WattsUpWIthThat have cottoned on to the failure of the Paris talks, Google forecasts no interest in Paris COP21 perhaps its time to start speculating as to how the climate extremists will respond when they once again face failure.
However, let me be frank, I’ve rather lost faith in my ability to predict the behaviour of climate extremists because they are just so irrational. At the end of 2012, when the Kyoto agreement stopped having any effect and despite having years to agree one, there was no sign of replacement, I knew the game was up. But apparently the climate extremists didn’t and when I challenged people on line they seriously told me the Kyoto accord was still functioning … that Elvis was alive (joke). But now, three years further along, even the climate extremists are beginning to admit the failure of the dead parrot talks in Paris. But whereas in 2012, I predicted a “thieves falling out” scenario after the commitment expired I now know these climate extremists are not rational people.
After all, not only do climate extremists irrationally believe in global doomsday, but they appear also to be totally irrational about their own prospects for governments to bow down and destroy their economies for the sake of their collective hysteria.
So, based on previous climate meetings, each of which has been an appalling failure – but proclaimed a success, I am rather reluctantly forced to predict that yet again they will come out of this meeting proclaiming it to be a success and yet again vowing to swallow the BS they are fed for just a few more years for the sake of “making progress”.
Or is that just too cynical?

I was commenting saying that “organisations are generally dumber than the people in them” – which made me realise why the climate extremists organisations are even stupider than they are. Which implies sceptics are more intelligent than most, supported by the fact that the survey of sceptics showed around half had a post graduate qualification.
So do sceptics generally have a higher IQ?
 

There’s a scene at the end of Men in Black II where kay opens a door to reveal that humans are just an insignificant group metaphorically living in a locker unaware of the wider context in which they live just like the “locker people” (below).

In a similar way this video really puts the minuscule “unprecedented” temperature rise which so many have vent so much angst about in its true context: a very small part of the normal natural variation of planetary temperature:

These days a “sceptic” has come to mean someone who bases their views on the evidence – particularly in the area of climate. In other words, largely the philosophy that (used to) prevail(ed) in science.
And I so, I suppose the extreme opposite would be a “group-thinker”, a “believer”: someone who never has an original thought nor has their own view, who cannot or will not understand the evidence or understand how to interpret it, but instead gets through life by just citing or assuming the views of others.
But when I was a lad … wasn’t a sceptic was someone who was … sceptical – even pessimistic to which the opposite used to be an “optimist”.
So isn’t it ironic, that these days it is the sceptics who are the optimists … that mother nature can do pretty well by herself with little or no help from humans and the opposite of sceptics  are the pessimists … always believing the world is going to get worse.

The pause is something whose definition belongs to climate sceptics like me who first identified it and named it. I personally was using it as long ago as 2007/8. It is in my climategate submission of 2009.
And because sceptics key concern is whether the forecasts of impending warming were correct, the pause has always been and will always be defined in terms of whether these forecasts of warming are correct. Thus the “pause” is anything less than the predicted warming.
And whilst there may be other forecasts, I personally have always used the 2001 IPCC prediction of between 1.4 and 5.8C warming by 2100 as being the key test. This is because 2001 was after the 1998 peak or the 1970-2000 warming and because it was a period without net change for a few years, it was not biased by the particular year chosen for the start, because being “flat” for a few years, one could use any date from 2001 onwards and get fairly much the same trend.
And as not one of those metrics for global temperature predicted to warm in 2001 has warmed at even the lowest rate, I can be 100% confidence that there is a 100% statistical significance that 100% of the metrics show a pause.  (Although obviously if one later fabricates “metrics” with the intent of not showing a pause …. ) Continue reading →

I’ve noticed a repeated pattern throughout the world that the people who run organisations tend to be the most extreme of the climate extremists. Why?
Some examples: the Pope, US president, Nurse (former head of Royalist Society), Richard Branson.
Here are some suggestions:

1. Those who can do … do. Those who can’t do … become managers. In other words, those who understand how things work in the world, tend to be interested in things that work. After all … it’s no great skill for us humans to interact with other humans. And management is really not that difficult – any decent parent knows how to be a manager, but only a few of us have the skills, education and experience to various aspects of the world.
2. Heads of organisations are seldom great thinkers. Instead, they are great at convincing other people to hand over ideas, power, etc. In other words, it is not what you know, but who you know who knows what you need to know – and the head’s ability to persuade underlings to hand over what they know to the heads who don’t know. So, the heads become powerful, by creating a coalition of people to feed them information, rather than knowing the information for themselves. As such they are extremely vulnerable to false information and “group-think”. Particularly ideas of their social grouping which they like … because to put it quite simply, they lack the knowledge/intelligence to know when they are being fed bullshit.
3. You don’t get to be head of some big organisation without a great deal of arrogance. And there can be nothing more arrogant than the idea that us humans could significantly change the climate. But also heads of organisations tend to live “consensus” decision making. Not that they seek a consensus, but instead, if they perceive a “consensus” even if all the individuals are cautious about a subject, they will tend to see “consensus” as showing that there is no need for caution. So, often heads, despite their almost total ignorance on a subject, will, if a “consensus” is present, be far less cautious than their advisers on a subject. Which works – when the advisers have all formed their own views – but is a recipe for disaster when they all come to their view from the same source.
4. World leaders today have a particular problem with climate. Because unlike those of us, who have pretty much stayed in the same place for decades on end, and whose own experience tells us the climate extremists rhetoric is bullshit, someone who has constantly moved location in their political career and doubtless goes on exotic foreign trips to relax rather than walk out their own front door … they haven’t a clue what is “normal” for even their own “local” climate. That’s because they don’t have a “local” climate.

I don’t need to add much to this Climate Depot article!
Those extremists leading the obscene attempt to prosecute the honest for having the courage to tell the public the truth, are themselves up to their backsides in the trough of public money.  Their behaviour is s0 disgusting it reminds me no less of Mr Creosote from Monty Python’s meaning of life.
However, there is one thing I will agree with the climate extremists: we need to have criminal anti-racketeering investigations and the group who I am certain would end up being found guilty is the global warming racketeers.

---

 By: Marc Morano – Climate DepotSeptember 20, 2015 11:42 PM

Update: “Scientist” leading effort to prosecute climate skeptics under RICO ‘paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from govt climate grants for part-time work’

As I said last post as more and more people reject climate extremism leaving a bedraggled band of unhappy eco-fascists contemplating their navel, what I am now finding most fun these days is watching these climate extremists slowly, slowly slowly … getting the joke …
And to prove the point I spotted this:-

Just cynical manipulation? Making climate finance pledges meaningful

Let’s face it. When the world’s wealthy nations met in Copenhagen and pledged to give $30 billion over 2010-2012 to the poor nations to deal with climate change (called “Fast Start Finance”) and scale up that funding by 2020 to $100 billion, it was desperate rhetoric.
…
Were those pledges completely cynical manipulation? Nearly all observers—and none more than the developing nations they are supposed to help—hope not. But the only way to know is by observing the action of the pledging nations: are they holding up their end of the deal? Unfortunately, by failing to define what would count as climate finance and who would count it, negotiators opened the door to numerous contrasting statements regarding the fulfilment of these promises.

Six years after Climategate and these guys still don’t understand that the politicians never had any intention of giving $billions to this stupid scam. It was all cheap rhetoric to keep the idiotic greens voting for those hypocritical politicians who say one thing to the public out of one bodily orifice and deliver with the other.