French physicist Dr. Serge Galam, director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS) and member of a laboratory of Ecole Polytechnique, has published a new paper entitled: 'Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation'
Abstract:
The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability. It is not the number of authors of a paper, which validates its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of certainty with respect the global warming problem is shown to be misleading. The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion and irrationality while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as priests in their will "to save the planet". We are facing a dangerous social phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down the upset nature is an emotional ancestral reminiscence of archaic fears, which should be analyzed as such.
Conclusion:
To sum up above analysis of the social and human aspects of global warming, most caution should be taken to prevent opportunistic politicians, more and more numerous, to subscribe to the proposed temptation of a sacrifice frame in order to reinforce their power by canalizing these archaic fears that are reemerging. Let us keep in mind that in a paroxysm crisis of fear, opinions can be activated very quickly among millions of mobilized citizens, ready to act in the same direction, against the same enemy: it then enough to designate it. Such kind of phenomena should be studied within the new emerging field of sociophysics, in particular the dynamics of minority opinion spreading and the rumor propagation [6, 7, 8].
Luke, I find your obsession with my work quite flattering. Obviously you fear it. If temperatures keep falling for a few more yearsthen only ones left supporting AGW will be the true believers, and the truly idiotic. Or is that moment with us now?
Just tell us you support Archibald's published work Brucey - just say it. I dare you. Surely you do and would like to throw your support in?
Luke, your C02 pseudoscience has failed miserably. The science has moved on. So, why don't you just stop throwing your pathetic little climate hysteric tantrums and get over it! Oh, and BTW, nice try with the straw men. ROTFLMAO!
Well it gets worse - he's now under attack from friendly fire - comments 720 through 730
Being asked things like:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679#comment-224682
"The RSS satellite temperature analysis in your presentation has a 0.18 degree per decade warming trend for the globe. Do you consider this to be insignificant?
What criteria did you use to select the 5 rural stations to represent the temperature change for the US?
Why do you believe that swings in the temperature of Central England are evidence that the world undergoes similar swings?
What is the source for the chart labeled “Medieval Warm Period - Little Ice Age”. Further, is it consistent with the chart that immediately follows, “The Holocene Optimum.”"
and then further
"0.18 degrees per decade is the rate of warming of the RSS analysis from 1979 to the present. That is independent of what any of us “see”.
You have used 5 temperature stations from the Southeast United States to infer the temperature change of the entire United States.
Local temperatures are more variable than global temperatures.
The graph from the First Assessment Report is Hubert Lamb’s temperature reconstruction of Central England. It was mislabled “global temperature” in the report. It uses growing seasons to infer temperature before thermometers.
You have mislabled the scale. According to Lamb’s graph, the difference between the LIA and MWP in Central England was about 1.3 degrees (based on 50 year averages), not 4 degrees. A 4 degree temperature change is clearly incompatible with the “Holocene Optimum” graph, even given the coarse resolution."
ROTFL - what a turkey shoot.