Why is there so much preoccupation with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions when it is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that the CO2 contribution to the overall greenhouse effect is so weak that it can be easily supplanted by small changes in clouds and water vapor, or natural climate-changing constituents?
Sunday, 10 October 2010
RIP Phillip and Tracey, virtual victims of 10:10's murderous intolerance
It served to give us insight into their attitudes, and for that we may be grateful.
Delingpole has a bitter-edged post on suggested actions for today, the 10th of October, 2010:
'Hey kids, the big day’s here. It’s 10/10/10 and that if you’ve been following the campaign of Franny Armstrong, Richard Curtis, Eugenie and all their other nicely-spoken, privately-educated, Daddy-funded, Guardian-reading trustafarian chums at 10:10, you’ll know that means just one thing: Climate Action.'
The first comment I saw posted under that piece, by 'scientificanomaly' is the inspiration for the title of this one:
'This post is in loving memory of the young martyrs Phillip and Tracy. May they rest in peace. They shall never be forgotten, we shall honour their memory by re-doubling our efforts to consign the AGW climate scam to the dustbin of history and by driving all the deranged eco-bullies out of positions of influence.'