@114. Eowyn:

How about, How does the ONE declaring a trend not in question become the final arbiter of any issue … without debate?

I welcome debate – so long as it is serious.

I don’t see any “re-evaluating” going on at all among AGW scientists. I see blackballing of colleagues, intolerance, painting of dissent as fringe lunacy, denialists, etc. Hundreds of scientists — including many cited on the IPCC “report” — disavow AGW, and more and more cracks in the supposedly consensus-backed facade are appearing as more flaws in the methodology are exposed.

On one hand you claim there is no re-evaluating going on, but on the other hand you claim that hundreds of scientists have re-evaluated their support for AGW. Which is it?

The truth is that any problems found with the data or methodology of AGW only serve to make the underlying theories stronger. That’s the beauty of science – when problems are identified, they can be rectified. In the case of AGW, the evidence continues to grow stronger as occasional flaws are identified and eliminated.

But still no “re-evaluation” is taking place.

That’s simply not true. Re-evaluation is an ongoing process that continues every day.

By the time that happens — IF it does — we’ll all be back to hunting and gathering, thanks to the expensive contribution AGW idiocy adds to an already collapsing economy.

Your apocalyptic vision is a paranoid fantasy. Eliminating fossil fuels does not require a regression to pre-civilized society. It just means we’ll get our power from other sources.

Peace.

DS