Home
> AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate > Why AGW Is Logically Impossible
Why AGW Is Logically Impossible
I recently started a list showing the incredible (supernatural?) number of coincidences that have to have happened (or have to be happening) for (catastrophic) AGW to be a concern. Well, the list kept growing. And so it now has its own page.
AGW is logically fallacious as it has providential undertones. In other words, for (catastrophic) AGW to be upon us right now, something akin to a God or gods (or god-like creatures) has/have to be taking care of us
The page is available next to the “About Omniclimate” menu entry in the bar below my picture.
Categories: AGW, Catastrophism, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate
Culture, Global Warming, logical fallacy
The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE 
Yes indeed – logically impossible – but try telling that to Fred Pearce (The New Scientist).
I attended the Battle of Ideas, event yesterday at the Royal College of Art in London, “Can we trust the evidence? The IPCC – A case study. The answer is unequivocally NO! [BTW Fora TV – The world is not thinking, was there so a video will follow] It was interesting to note that there were about a dozen empty seats – certainly not your usual ‘wall to wall greens’, indicating perhaps that the IPCC and global warming, has gone off the boil and is not such a hot ticket any more.
And, I might add that, in a sense – from the greens perspective – this event was very much an opportunity for the them to publically re-group, to wash their dirty laundry, to acknowledge and confess the past sins of the IPCC and to say: “Okay the IPCC is guilty of overt cheating and made mistakes, but essentially the science is sound and we just want to put all of that ‘Climategate’ affair behind us and move on.
In a nutshell, this was the purpose of Fred Pearce (New Scientist), who argued this case, [and is obviously attempting to maintain his credibility and readership], and I must admit I do find him an able journalist, who sadly just hasn’t yet cottoned on to the fact that he has become a cheerleader for high- risk speculative capitalism i.e. carbon trading.
He is still under the delusion that this debate is about the science and the environment, which of course we know it is not – it’s about carbon taxes, sucking the wealth out of Britain; it’s about creating a new carbon/climate change banking system [lots more of our dosh going in to the pockets of the bankers]; essentially this debate is about power, greed, and the conflict, within capitalism between as I mentioned high-risk specualtive capitalism v investment capitalism, and if the carbon traders win we will undoubtly be further robbed of our democratic rights and freedoms, to say nothing of the imposition of devistating regressive carbon taxes on our poorest citizens.
Fay – your comment has been “promoted” (so to speak) to a blog post on its own…