Beverly’s Blasts:- Forget Global Warming

I left the following comments at

Beverly seems a nice girl and according to her site she is an energy consultant whose job is to  “turn buildings into energy generators rather than energy users.”

Beverly did not see the irony in my first comment and when she saw my second she appears to have spammed it immediately.

Unfortunately Beverly, I will have to chalk you up as another AGW believer who cannot tolerate facts and opinions that contradict your own.

Dont worry about losing your job when AGW is shown to be the fraud it is though, if you can save businesses money without taxpayer intervention, I’m sure your services will still be in demand.


February 2, 2011 at 2:57 PM

Yes I am sure that there will be global warming no matter what the weather.



Beverly’s Blast

February 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM

True, it is too late to stop global warming, it has already begun and is gathering momentum. However, it is not yet too late to halt this progression and, eventually, to reverse the amount of greenhouse gases spewing into the atmosphere. This will slowly, very slowly, allow the earth to heal. The question remains whether or not our governments are up to the challenge. So far, especially here in the United States, the answer is if it doesn’t line the corporate pockets, it’s not worth doing.

The following comment was the one spammed. I guess it was too much for poor Beverly.


You missed the irony in my comment.

There may or may not be Global Warming but it is obvious that proponents of AGW are engaging in incredible contortions to show that the climate is still warming in spite of ocurrences which are obviously worrying them.

They do this because there is no proof of global warming, only some vague correlations which, if you ever studied statistics, you would know, do not constitute proof in any shape or form, and climate warming is the only thing they have that supports their theory.

What is more important is that some empirical proof demonstrating the CO2 – Global Warming causation is valid be found.

Unfortunately this has not been found so we do not even know if the temperature rises since about 1900 are even caused by CO2.

Unfortunately for AGW proponents there are historical and archaeological facts which disprove that connection, and the truth is that we have not even reached the same temperature of the Holocene Maximum (during which the Sahara was fertile), yet.

This is not to say that the earth does not have conservation issues that desperately need addressing, but CO2 is not one of them.

Please read my blog and comment there if you disagree or otherwise. I never disallow comments unless they are obvious spam.

Your comment about “corporate pockets” is interesting.

Did you ever think about what will happen if we follow the IPCC guidelines and reduce fossil energy use by 60%?

Of course the price of energy will skyrocket, and who will benefit from that? Well I would put my money on the oil suppliers and the like. They will be able to reduce oil production and sit back to enjoy the high prices and inflated margins. Just like OPEC has tried to do all these years.




So sorry you saw fit to spam my comment.
I am disappointed in you though, I would have though an engineer such as yourself would be able to tolerate someone elses point of view and at least discuss some of the facts therein.

Never mind though, I published the comment for you on my other blog where my readers will take great delight in seeing another AGW faithful unable to defend the faith and bear in mind that I never spam a comment unless it is exactly that, and I always answer comments so long as the conversation remains logical.
Please feel welcome to visit.



Well Beverly restored my comment so I waited to see if she had anything of her own to add to the conversation.

I was just about to thank her for restoring my comment when all of a sudden it disppeared again and the following appeared in its place.

Beverly’s Blast

February 3, 2011 at 10:19 AM

Thank you for your comments Roger, you are certainly welcome to your opinion. However, I find it is not beneficial to engage in a discussion with someone whose opinion is so firmly settled. Good luck to you in your endeavors.

Gosh Beverly, and I was just about to thank you for restoring my comment.
I was also wondering if you were going to express an opinion as well but I guess you have found that a too difficult a task.
Trust you read my coments at which unfortunately, (for you), you have vindicated even further.



“It is not beneficial to engage in a discussion with someone whose opinion is so firmly settled.”

Well I take that as a compliment actually because it shows that she has no answer for the logic in my comment. It is true that good sound logic is difficult to criticise.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses to “Beverly’s Blasts:- Forget Global Warming”

  1. Pete_Ridley Says:

    Hi Roger, I’ve just submitted this to Beverly’s “Forget Global Warming” thread ( and wonder if it will be “spammed” QUOTE:

    Hi Beverly, it appears that you are a confirmed follower of the CACC doctrine so perhaps you have some deep understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates and evidence that our use of fossil fuels is causing significant changes to them. I would appreciate you sharing any such knowledge, because another staunch supporter of the doctrine, ecologist Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University, said a couple of years ago “There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers”. You are obviously more knowledgeable that Professor Brook. I know that his area of expertise is in species extinctions, not climate science, so I can pass your expertise on to him.

    BTW, Professor Brook went on to say “But EVERYTHING? Or even most things? Take 100 lines of evidence, discard 5 of them, and you’re still left with 95 and large risk management problem”. He seemed to be trying to imply that 95% of the science behind climate processes and drivers is understood, but I can find no evidence to support that and suspect that, like the IPCC, simply plucked a figure out of the air.

    The next IPCC report AR5 is being prepared now so your expertise could be invaluable for them.


    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Thanks Peter,

      One day when I have the time, I am going to extract some stats from this blog and get an idea of how many alarmists cannot face up to facts. I suspect it might be something like 99%



    • rogerthesurf Says:

      Pete you should give this bird a boost. It seems that some women have given up Tupperware parties in favour of Climate change hen nights.



      • Pete_Ridley Says:

        Hi Roger, OK, I’ve done that just now so how about submitting the comment that I sent youj today about mike’s Watching the Deniers “Pete Ridley is Banned” thread onto it for me. He needs to know the facts.
        Best regards, Pete

      • rogerthesurf Says:

        As you know I got spammed off the site in question. The real things I have been saying are not being published, including my reference to your comment.
        Anyway the site is stupid and futile anyway. Some very young guys with limited knowledge and understanding I am quite sure. If they are trying to support AGW then they are doing a poor job. Driving supporters away I should think. I can quite honestly say that although I have seen many ad homenum attacks on that site, I must say I have never seen a fact discussed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: