1. Among the most powerful human urges is to seek shelter.
2. The belief that human beings can, or soon will, control the weather emanates from this urge.
3. With every year that passes, more people and a higher percentage of people on the planet become less exposed to the elements. But no level of safety is deemed acceptable. The memory of being exposed to the elements is so powerful that irrational thinking parading as science becomes conventional.
4. From the computer cultists: “Are you saying we should all be exposed to the elements again? Are you?”
5. One great irony: the supposed nature-lovers are those in fact those most frightened by nature and those who would avoid it if they could. The computer will shield them from the great gusts of wind. The computer will shield them from the rising waters. The computer will shield them from the next forest fire. The computer will shield them from sorrow.
6. Whereas in the 1600s those who seemed a little off were burned at the stake to appease the Great God of Weather and get the crops back to normal immediately, in the 2000s those who dare question the conventional wisdom that computers will save us from suffering are labeled anti-science and anti-nature. But it is precisely those questioning the almighty power of computers who are pro-science, pro-nature.
7. Every dollar spent on a computer model investigating the imaginary omnipotence of carbon dioxide is a dollar not spent on pollution abatement. Carbon dioxide causes zero cases of cancer per year.
8. If the scientists such as Hansen love science so much, why have they employed a temperature graph that is purely an exercise in scare-tactics to convey their view? Does my car engine show temperature as an anomaly? Does my home thermostat show temperature as an anomaly? Does the thermometer I use to measure the temperature of my precious children show temperature as an anomaly? No, no, and no. Showing a y-axis with a couple of degrees maximum variability, when the climate system has generated greater swings than this thousands of times in the past, is anti-science and anti-history, pure and simple.
9. By repeating the anti-science and anti-history a sufficient number of times, it magically becomes true. See The New York Times.