James Delingpole writes at the Telegraph:
Well, of course they are. If there is one overriding prerequisite of every new IPCC Assessment report, it’s to sound even more scary and urgent and certain than its predecessor.
James Delingpole writes at the Telegraph:
Well, of course they are. If there is one overriding prerequisite of every new IPCC Assessment report, it’s to sound even more scary and urgent and certain than its predecessor.
Reminds me of a court case where the defendant sticks to the same story through most of the proceedings, claiming that it’s the truth. But when the prosecution tears the defense’s story apart, the defense suddenly comes up with a new absolutely true alibi.
Possibly a closer analogy would be the defendant demanding that judge change the law and/or the jury ignore the prosecution.
This wouldn’t look so suspicious if the climate community hadn’t been denying the lack of warming for the last 10 years or so (gotta give some time to establish that warming wasn’t happening). Any mention of non-warming was treated with dismissal, derision, and accusation. Now they’re scrambling to throw out any unqualified excuse to explain the hiatus.
Reminds me of a court case where the defendant sticks to the same story through most of the proceedings, claiming that it’s the truth. But when the prosecution tears the defense’s story apart, the defense suddenly comes up with a new absolutely true alibi.
The real question is the percentage of intelligent people.