Ding Dong the witch of anthropogenic global warming is dead.

As recent hacked e-mails will prove Gore, the IPCC and UN pawns that wrote the junk science to suit the politically motivated energy slavery proposed by the dictators of the United Nations, will start to unravel.

So much for settled science. Science without debate is propaganda.

Many journalists and various “concerned scientists” etc. often say that the hockey stick is just a small topic and those “evil skeptics” focus on this topic because all their other arguments failed.

This viewpoint seems to contradict reality. When we’re trying to judge whether our civilization is sustainable or not as far as climate goes, we must be comparing our influence to the natural developments, in order to predict future and in order to know whether this predicted future will be a pleasant place for life (was it pleasant in the past?).

There is obviously no reliable theoretical method to calculate the variations at all timescales. Climate reconstructions are completely essential in this respect. We seem to know that the temperatures were 10 degrees higher, and the CO2 concentration was most likely above 3,000 ppm when the mammals were getting started 100+ million years ago. It was not a problem for the early mammals.

Also, the temperature was jumping between the ice ages and interglacials, together with the CO2 concentrations. So the fluctuations definitely existed on these longer timescales. The main question for practical purposes is what the fluctuations looked like in the last thousands of years, and the reconstructions are critical in judging whether our era is exceptional – as Sir John’s reasoning shows. I don’t see other equally important scientific questions that may affect our opinion about the hypothetical climate policies.

Concerning the personal attacks on the skeptics: those people advocating the “consensus” seem(ed) to imagine that they are/were the leaders of a society that is able to impose its opinions on all the people – it’s enough to say that someone is bad and disagrees with the “Party” of consensus scientists – and perhaps even connected with the capitalists – and the person is eliminated (and not allowed to publish). This worked in Germany and the Soviet Union for a couple of decades – but it only worked because the leaders had military and other tools on their side.

On the other hand, we are living in democracy where we usually enjoy the freedom of speech and scientific inquiry – and it is absolutely clear that the tendencies to make the opposition silent without arguments just can’t succeed. It’s great that a more balanced set of papers is being published recently, and I hope that this development will continue and people will start to check the important statements – not just the Hockey Team, but also other things that could be comparably problematic. It was just very wrong if such important things such as the temperature record of last 1000 years were not checked by the people outside the “hockey team” until recently. Now the topic will get popular enough so that many people may jump on the bandwagon and investigate the available data and papers critically.

All the best
Lubos