But if you do so, you are exactly behaving like the regressive persons described by H.

Thank you for bringing up, early in your response, the 97% figure (regarding published climate scientists, etc.). You’ve exposed yourself as a fraud, perhaps unwittingly.

The 97% figure is total bullshit. If you haven’t done the research, do yourself a favor and seriously look at where that number comes from. I am disgusted by people who throw that out there, which occurs for one or both of two reasons: 1) they are ignorant, not knowing where that number comes from, and 2) they have an agenda.

You fall into one camp, perhaps both. The 97% number has been thrashed by esteemed scientists, and yet you and others have the balls to keep using it. I, like most “deniers” — as we are called — do not argue climate change; we are skeptical of man as the overwhelming, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt culprit.

As someone more knowledgeable than me on the subject stated recently, and I’m paraphrasing, what we have, essentially, is people being paid to find evidence of AGW. Hired guns. A lot of money is being funneled to them and their universities, through research grants and so on. As long as they keep presenting evidence, the money keeps flowing. Fair enough.

Now, suppose the guy holding the purse strings comes out with an announcement: from now on, 50% of the $$ will go to finding evidence of warming that is NOT attributed to man. Guess what? They would release boatloads of data showing exactly that. There just happens to be quite a bit of it out there.

97% of all climatologists my ass. This is what turns people off to the nitwits drinking the kool aid. I’ll bet you think pulling out of Paris was a bad idea, too. Paris is nothing more than a money grab. Wealth redistribution. Extortion, in other words. Even the UN admits it.

We’ve reduced our emissions by over 13% in the past decade. We’re moving in the right direction. Brazil, China, India? Umm, no. The US should not send billions if not trillions of dollars to developing countries that are not obligated to do a damn thing. India, as an example, can actually increase their emissions and still meet their ‘obligation’ or commitment. Really? China won’t begin to voluntarily reduce emissions until around 2030, when experts claim their output will peak, anyway. And even if we met the ‘goal’ of Paris, the impact by century’s end would be laughably insignificant. MIT says so. NASA says so.

Cold kills more people than heat does. I’d bet my left nut on it. Tell me how warmer temps in the past affected humankind. Plants love CO2, which acts as a fertilizer. Lots of greenery now in places where there was no green. Does that mean we want to continue dumping more and more into the atmosphere? No. But don’t tell me that President Trump backing out of Paris is a death sentence to children and old people, that the planet will become a fiery inferno. Unless you want me to laugh out loud.

Tell me what the percentages are: man-made warming vs. non man-made warming. 10%, 30%, 90%? How much?

Have another glass of kool aid, man. All this global warming is making you thirsty.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.