Which will it be in 100 years? That people will be much richer or dead due to climate failure to adapt?

[Crick]

They create what is known by the name of Glittering Generalities. Read the definition. They will pretend to cite millions of scientists but in god knows only what experts they are in, if climate is their routine job and tell you actual climatologists are all wrong. But they are or course the sole arbiters of what is right or not.

"They" being the vast majority of published and practicing climate scientists.

If you'd like to see the stolen valor of the climate science field, check out the actual signatories to those anti-AGW "declarations".

 

[ActionJackson]

The video below, the inconvenient truth is not by Al Gore. Rather it is by two intelligent men. Do you wonder how man managed to survive earlier climate change? I have wondered. I wonder what is in it for Democrats in particular to run around with their hair on fire over this issue? Don't they have any faith at all in their fellow dads, moms, children and yes, Government that they that live then will surely thrive and be much richer. So what do you want Citizen? For your family to be richer or for them to have their AC units running?

Nobody will die of the changing seasons (unless someone freezes to death or dies of heat exhaustion as they trek across Death Valley) but there will be lots of richer people and lots more government control.

 

[Robert W]

A very large percentage of scientists from all over the world believe we are in danger from manmade global warming. Why do you reject their conclusions?

You would think that were that true, a large percent of said scientists would be on the top news programs screaming fire at us. So why is it that Democrats do this and not the scientists?

 

[Robert W]

"They" being the vast majority of published and practicing climate scientists.

If you'd like to see the stolen valor of the climate science field, check out the actual signatories to those anti-AGW "declarations".

More glittering generalities.

 

[Crick]

More glittering generalities.

It's so handy to have an alliterative diss for something that actually requires a little thought. Thinking is SUCH a chore. And... who needs it? Certainly not AGW deniers.

 

[Robert W]

It's so handy to have an alliterative diss for something that actually requires a little thought. Thinking is SUCH a chore. And... who needs it? Certainly not AGW deniers.

Look, does man manage global climate?

 

[Robert W]

It's so handy to have an alliterative diss for something that actually requires a little thought. Thinking is SUCH a chore. And... who needs it? Certainly not AGW deniers.

Tackle if you will please, this part of global warming concepts? That the planet warmed as much from 1910-1940 as now.

She tells me, for example, that between 1910 and 1940, the planet warmed during a climatic episode that resembles our own, down to the degree. The warming can’t be blamed on industry, she argues, because back then, most of the carbon-dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels were small. In fact, Curry says, “almost half of the warming observed in the twentieth century came about in the first half of the century, before carbon-dioxide emissions became large.” Natural factors thus had to be the cause.

Climate Science’s Myth-Buster

We’ve all come across the images of polar bears drifting on ice floes: emblematic victims of the global warming that’s melting the polar ice caps, symbols of the threat to the earth posed by our ceaseless energy production—above all, the carbon dioxide that factories and automobiles emit. We...

www.city-journal.org

 

[elektra]

A very large percentage of scientists from all over the world believe we are in danger from manmade global warming. Why do you reject their conclusions?

because you are a liar, it is 6 people telling us what they think everyone else thinks, based on criteria they do not divulge to the public, based on titles of a small percentage of papers published in which we do not get access to

 

[elektra]

the obvious is, the climate cult states manufacturing, polluting, creating energy is causing a rise in CO2

The climate cult's solution;
to cut down square miles of trees that eat CO2
to destroy farmland by the square mile that eats CO2
to increase the use of oil and fossil fuels building inefficient wind and solar power, increasing CO2

CO2 can not be a problem anybody is worried about when the solution only increases the CO2 in the atmosphere

 

[Crick]

The video below, the inconvenient truth is not by Al Gore. Rather it is by two intelligent men. Do you wonder how man managed to survive earlier climate change? I have wondered. I wonder what is in it for Democrats in particular to run around with their hair on fire over this issue? Don't they have any faith at all in their fellow dads, moms, children and yes, Government that they that live then will surely thrive and be much richer. So what do you want Citizen? For your family to be richer or for them to have their AC units running?

Can't they be both rich and dead?