This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
And further on, clicking through from the New Scientist comments on a link to this story about Antarctic cooling, we find the same sort of "careful not to defy the AGWers":
So here is a Scientist whose research shows that the Antarctic is cooling and has been for some time.
Perhaps he was feeling much as Galileo did when he tried to counter the religious orthodoxy of an earth centred solar system, and in an effort to ward of the Inquitions he says:
"Antarctica is somewhat isolated because there is a big ocean current that constantly circles around the continent and actually sort of isolates it, and that's what makes it cold. And, that may be a factor in why we are seeing Antarctica cooling is that slight disconnect from the rest of the globe, and it's not behaving in the same way."
In other words, if it were warming then it fits the AGW scenario, but since it is not, we must be careful to define it as an anomaly - AGW is happening, just not here or right now. (But maybe it would be cooling much more if it weren't for AGW... remember how Global Chinning is masking Global Warming and in fact Global warming is even worse than we thought?)
Of course, this is a 202 article. There have been more recent reports that the Artic is warming. But of course, that is consistent with AGW so is not considered anomalous behaviour.
So, friend JMW, if it is a religious cult, can you agree with me that we in the West are conducting a 'Jihad' on the rest of the World?? --- If you do, and we are, is this not War. If not 'War of the Worlds'; para-phrasing H.G. Wells:- 'WAR OF THE WORDS'??
Not me, I'm a conscientious objector in this war but I wouldn't disagree in principle that some form of religious war is being waged since it is being based on belief not science.
The question is, who is it directed against?
If it is waged with vigour then it may well be that the third world countries are the victims but I rather suspect that the third world find its culture better able to survive than the first world.
This is, because of the huge costs, a war which will largely destroy the cultures that support it; the US and Europe.
The first victim of war is truth. How true... (oops!)
I at times suspect that the self destruction the AGW policies will cause is intended and that combating climate change is merely a means to an end and that the destruction of western civilisation is the real objective. Maybe not with those who started it all off but with those who have opportunistically claimed on the bandwagon and taken control.
JMW, in principle I do agree with your comments, but as you raise other important issues, allied to, but not of immediate concern to JamesT's post, I would prefer to cover them in a new post which I have been busy researching.
In the meantime, I would make these points:- The very use of the term 'Global' Warming speaks volumes. AGW is directed against the whole World. It is exploited by all our politicians. They pursue the policies which seek to put India and China in a 'dog house' of the West's making. They make demons of the East as though they were the Enemy: is this not the tactics of War, is this not the makings of a third World War? The AGW hoi poloi would be nowhere without Their support.
It Is waged with vigour where they think they can get away with it: the defenceless, impoverished, third world. This is an act of War.
Manifestly, it is the politicians of the West, hiding behind, and exploiting the UN, (which itself is a western inspired organisation), who are using the Green Dupes for their own ends. Politicians are not that stupid. Do they all genuinely believe in AGW? Clearly, it is their hidden agenda which we must address.
This is a good link:
I expect AGW to retreat to those who stand to make money or a career out of it (some scientists, some manufacturers, some charities) and a hardcore of True Believers. The danger, as Dr. Kiminori Itoh says, is that the public may come to disbelieve science in general. The upside is that we might start to address real problems rather than illusory ones.