If the Institute of Physics acknowledges inappropriate climate science, is it time to re-think AGW claims?

The left has been trying to use science to push their agenda since Marx invented their theology. Well, there have certainly been the chicken little's long before Marx but he helped coalesce their ideology. Hitler, a follower of Marx, used all sorts of propaganda from so called science.

Eugenics was all the rage in those days and was favored by the Progressives in the west. Hitler took it it to its logical conclusion and the left then distanced themselves from Hitler even calling him right wing. Well that and the fact that he attacked their beloved Soviet Union who most felt a closer political alliance to.

Hitler may have gotten the bomb if they didn't discount "Jewish" science. Schools have been largely taken over by the left and much of their agenda is provided as science to the young. I think most people can think of examples of the brown shirts or children being indoctrinated and then used to push the agenda of the state.

Alarmists rarely provide scientific arguments. Instead, they try to convince people of a consensus. They rarely provide limitations to their knowledge and acknowledge what is fact and what is theory.

They mock conservatives, particularly successful women and minorities (eg. One JA above mocking Palin's legs) while they pretend to be for women and minorities. In fact they are only for leftist women and leftist minorities.

They seem to believe that minorities aren't smart enough to succeed unless they are led by them. They pretend that the First Ladies of their candidates are the smartest women in the world and they treat them in a way that can only be equated to worship. They equate intelligence with how far left they are and stupidity with how conservative.

They are so brainwashed and mind numbed, they really believe they know all sorts of things they are clueless about. I could go on and on about the idiosyncrasies of the left.

Is it happening", "how is it happening", "what is it likely to do next", and so on are scientific questions, with scientific answers. Science is the best place to look to figure out things like "how much warming is going to be caused by a given amount of CO2 emissions", or "How much would CO2 emissions be reduced if we did (X)". What to do about AGW is a political question.

But I strongly believe that we should give preference to arguments that *acknowledge what's actually happening*, instead of doing the debate equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "La, la, la, I'm not listening"... It may be that the best political solution is not any of the "liberal" favorites, like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade. It may be that the best solution is something like the more conservative-friendly notion of nuclear power plants. It may even be that the best solution is adaptation rather than prevention.

It is probable, however, that we will need more than one approach to solve such a large and pervasive problem. And the first step is for people like you to stop pretending that it's not actually occurring.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.