Sorry Abraham but I don't usually read or respond to arguments chopped up like that. And I certainly don't accept an argument that something just isn't so unless you can articulate a reasoned rationale for rejecting a concept or at least provide a credible source. But have a good day.
Meanwhile:
Re John Howard's (former Australian prime minister) speech of two weeks ago:
Tuesday nights speech was titled One religion is enough.
In notes for the speech distributed beforehand, Mr Howard said he chose the title in reaction to the sanctimonious tone employed by so many of those who advocate costly responses to what they see as irrefutable evidence that the worlds climate faces catastrophe.
The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet.
He accused the IPCC of including nakedly political agendas in its advice
Mr Howard also criticised zealous advocates of action of global warming and alarmists for attempting to exploit the NSW bushfires in October.
He pointed out that a big bushfire in Victoria took place 163 years ago, when the planet was not experiencing any global warming. You might well describe all of this as an inconvenient truth
Speaking in London ahead of the speech, Mr Howard said climate change activists saw the issue as a substitute religion its the latest progressive cause, he said
I am unconvinced that catastrophe is around the corner I instinctively feel that some of the claims are exaggerated.
Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard Admits He Caved In On Global Warming, Not From Conviction But Fear | PA Pundits - International
So it is ironic that Tony Abbott, the 'conservative' as Americans would define him, has personally embraced the AGW religion but has dumped the more indefensible policies associated with it and surrounds himself with people who reject it.
Australia's New Prime Minister Surrounded By Climate Science Denying Voices and Advisors | DeSmogBlog
While his predecessor, the 'liberal' as Americans would define him, who put all those policies into place, or tried to, is the one now admitting that there is insufficient evidence to support the AGW religion and that would make him a skeptic.![]()
That's a head-spinner.. Gotta be that NEITHER of them wants to become a useful tool for the AGW movement.
Must let all that sink in.. But it's not a good omen for the movement -- err hmmm -- religion..
I'll have to admit it gave me a chuckle. Politics absolutely produces strange bedfellows.