This is funny:
A report by the International Energy Agency claims that emissions which will be saved by COP21 / Paris climate pledges currently on the table, will only delay Climageddon by 8 months.
Huh.
Funny that I'm a "denier" even though I accept that the planet is warmer now than a century-and-a-half ago and that I accept that humans contribute to greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere that affect the climate.
What I deny is that this is uniquely--or even mostly--man's fault. The evidence doesn't seem to be there. The output of models is not real world data.
And I deny their solutions are any solution at all. Can the global warmers deny this failure to solve the problem on their terms?
UPDATE: As the defenders of climate change "science" swoon that the top religious leader of a major religion has taken their side, this lengthy critique of the perversion of science is well worth your time.
And who knew that I'm really a "lukewarmer?"
These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.
That's it. I accept the world is warmer than it was in 1850, given that a little ice age has ended since then. If man didn't exist the planet would be warming.
And given that the "pause" in warming has hit 18 years in defiance of the models, I find it odd to deny that the models are not quite right.
And as I've said before, I believe I could be persuaded that global warming is a problem if the science looks solid. Can the Warministas admit anything would shake their faith?
