Scottish Sceptic

In an article referring to Global Warming activists Randal Simonetti  a consultant in reputational management spells out the truth we sceptics know, the activists are primarily driven by money:-

“you must first consider the driving motive that supports the attacker’s existence. In this case, the environmental group, like many other social activist organizations, is dependent on contributions from people who share their cause. Most of these organizations are hungry for publicity and public awareness so being involved in a sensational story in which they appear as the protector supports their financial goals.

As is often the case, funding is a primary driver of any activist organization’s behavior.

… Once the activist organization realizes you have exposed their funding strategy to the very contributors they depend on, they will cease the attack.”

Defending Your Company Against an Activist Attack
Randal Simonetti | Reputation & Crisis Management

For years whenever someone mentioned the decline in sea ice I would respond “but that’s what we would expect to see after the temperature rise from the little ice age”.
In other words, if temperature rises – as we are assured it has – that must mean that there was less sea ice. So, a decline in sea ice did not say anything we did not already know.
However reading climate4you
I came across a graph of total sea ice and that showed that the sea ice had recovered recently:
It certainly shows that the total sea ice is above the average of 1979 to 2013, but what does this tell us as roughly half will be above and half below this line. Continue reading →

I came across this sentence today:
“Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 °C global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. ” (link)
Professor Hermann Harde has shown that if you use the latest HITRAN database of greenhouse gas spectral absorption and not the out of date version used by the IPCC, rather that 1C the warming is calculated to be equivalent to 0.6C. (see: Only 0.6C warming – IPCC must now scale down warming prediction)
As Professor Hermann Harde is an undoubted expert in CO2 gas absorption and as the main difference is that he has calculated the figure based on the latest database, it is almost certain that not only is this “1C” figure disputed but it is almost certainly wrong.
To put this figure in context. This one figure amounts to the “science” behind this global warming scam. CO2 is s greenhouse gas, the effect of doubling it (without considering negative feedbacks) is about 0.6C. This figure is almost certainly the best figure available and the 1C used by the IPCC is at best mistaken at worst an outright fraud.
Easy to calculate
If it’s so easy – why did they get it so wrong? The truth is that it involves a huge amount of computer time to do a proper spectral line-by-line calculation using the detailed spectral data from HITRAN. In other words it is a fairly technical and computer intensive calculation.
But please do not attemt to change this on Wikipedia. Every article on climate is so biased and full of lies like this that all you will do, is remove the obvious lies like this making it less obvious that Wikipedia on climate is nothing but greenblob propaganda.