TODAY we are going to be taking a look at some of the ways you can tell a CCF (Climate Change Fanatic).

You will find that because of their being brainwashed they will constantly utter the same phrases over and over, rather like a robot with a damaged thinking chip.

Some of the phrases you will hear are:

"There is a consensus"

"The Science is settled"

"The debate is over"

"The evidence is overwhelming"

These phrases have only one purpose and that is to bully and cow. They are trying to kid you that you are the only one who does not believe in manmade global warming, or to give it it's technical term Anthropogenic Global Warming or AGW, and therefore you better fall into line pretty sharpish or else! Let us have a look at these phrases and see how in fact they are totally meaningless.

CONCENSUS

My dictionary defines consensus as meaning 'a general agreement', which sounds pretty good until you start to pull it apart. The first thing you will find is that the 'general agreement' is only among those who agree with each other. Now that does sound a bit obvious, but that is what they are trying to con you with. The fact is there is no scientific agreement about AGW but so far you have only been allowed to hear from those who support it. Another thing to look at is that AGW should be a matter of science not politics. The difference is very important. In politics you can put a motion to the vote, and if there is a majority who vote yes the motion is carried. However that is not, or should not, be the way science operates. In science a thesis must be subject to experiment, and the important thing about these experiments is that they must be repeatable and always produce the same results. You cannot for example reproduce the experiment a thousand times, achieve the theoretical goal in 700 cases and say 'Case proved'. Science doesn't, or shouldn't, work like that. Let's say a scientist comes up with the theory that if you mix 1 gallon of cold water with 1 gallon of boiling water you end up with two gallons of warmish water. He will offer his theory in a paper, and in this paper he will give all the details of the experiment that he undertook to arrive at his conclusions, such as temperature of water at the start of the experiment and temperature at the end of the experiment. This will enable other scientists to reproduce exactly what he did, and if they all reach the same conclusion the theory is considered scientifically proved. If however 999 scientists come up with the same answer and just 1 comes up with a different answer then the theory is not proved and must be subject to further scrutiny. For example let us look at Cold Fusion.

Interest in the field was dramatically increased on March 23, 1989 when Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons reported that they had produced fusion in a tabletop experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium (Pd) electrode. They reported anomalous heat production ("excess heat") of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium.[2] These reports raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.

Enthusiasm turned to scepticism as replication failures were weighed in view of several reasons cold fusion should not be possible, the discovery of possible sources of experimental error, and finally the discovery that Fleischmann and Pons had not actually detected nuclear reaction byproducts. By late 1989, most scientists considered cold fusion claims dead. (Extract taken from Wikipedia)

Because the experiment could not be replicated the theory was eventually rejected. The fact is that the CCF's have not managed to produce any evidence at all that their theories are correct. When asked for their data so that others might check it the requests have either been ignored or the data has been destroyed. On several occasions there is evidence that data has been falsified. A recent leaking of thousands of emails from Hadley CRU showed this was exactly what had been going on for years. Don't take my word for it check for yourselves the information is out there. I do not ask that you believe me like CCF's do, all I ask is that you use what I say as a springboard to discover the truth for yourself.

THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.

Well no actually it's not. It is settled between all those scientists who believe in it but there are tens of thousands of scientists who don't. Recently over 30,000 of them signed the Oregon Treaty, to say that they don't. The Daily Express for December 2 2009 led with a headline "THE BIG CLIMATE CHANGE FRAUD", which reports on the findings of Professor Ian Plimmer, so be very, very assured the science is far from settled.

THE DEBATE IS OVER

It's a bit difficult how the debate could be over when in fact no debate has ever been held on the subject. Those scientists who attended conferences to speak out about AGW were actually prevented from doing so. Not so long ago these scientists got so fed up with being muzzled that they took out full page adverts in all the major American Newspapers challenging the CCF's to debate the issue. The result? The CCF's declined the challenge because they said 'the debate is over'. Circular thinking if ever I saw it.

THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING

Well no actually it's not. The CCF's have yet to produce a single piece of evidence that any change in the climate is due to and only due to man. The evidence they have tried to slide past the public is often misleading and sometimes downright fraudulent. Here is an email that was recently revealed in Climategate.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline"

This was in response to hundreds of scientists pointing out a rather inconvenient truth that far from warming up, the planet is actually cooling down. That didn't suit the CCF's so they falsified the data.

This outrageous chicanery is evidence of just how far these despicable people will go to grab more of your money and stuff it in their pockets.

Next we will be looking at how the CCF's are all fully paid up members of the 'Don't do what I do – do what I say' club.

I thought we might need a logo. So here's one.

So come on folks, joint the SAS – Sane and Sensible. (With apologies to the Regiment)