This story is unavailable.

So those who disagree with you are “ignorant fanatics”.

I was interested in seeing if there is any way one can find middle ground with an alarmist of your caliber, perhaps in some little part of what we are discussing. Is the scale used in the diagrams from the IPCC designed to promote the hypothesis, if so why? Isn’t that a tool of propaganda, not science? Can we have a civil discussion about the over-emphasized positive feedbacks without which climate alarmism would have no foundation at all? If we look at the history of the climate, what do we see regarding the so called “tipping points”? Is that how the climate really works? You would probably not discuss this, since like a true fanatic, to you everything is already clear —” the science is settled.”

All that remains is forcing the public and the politicians to dance to your flute.

An example. In the Sahel, I sometimes see new growth forests now where there used to be semi desert or arid plains. This has changed dramatically over the last 35 years, and will likely continue to change. I am more of an observer looking for explanations to what I see, not a propagandist or a soldier. I do know some of the reasons for the greening, but I am not getting any valid answers from people like you.

Those I do know working in fields relating to climate, like agriculture, meteorology, glaciology, geology, they are careful about wording their skepsis towards the dire predictions we hear. Presumably afraid of having to engage with the hard liners in control. It is a sad state of affairs.

I am however fairly confident your kind will be seen with growing disdain as time goes, a process that has already started. So I am not overly worried.

Good bye.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.