A New Lie 'Climate Breakdown has begun'

Again, you cry "deniers!!!", because you refuse to listen to other opinions and want to turn it into a polar issue.

Deniers are on the fringe, nobody cares about their opinions.  The ACTUAL DEBATE is the pace of change people are willing to accept, and the only thing your insistence of trying to label everybody a "denier" does, is make you fail to understand the situation.

The other thing you are doing is using the worst case "doomsday" prediction as the most likely to happen.  Science has given us predictions that spread between best / worst case... normal, sensible people, would pick the middle ground as the most likely.

As for the "history will remember" nonsense, who fucking cares, I'll be dead lol.  I could easily switch around that around.  Imagine you inflict severe financial hardship on people, and then boffins invent something that removes the problem 50 years later.  "History" will critisise your doomsday cultish over-reaction lol.

When has there been a rapid change of temperature during human history (300,000 years) ... 1816 eruption of Mount Tambora, Medievel Warm Period, Little Ice Age, 8.2 kiloyear event, Younger Dryas and multiple glacial events lol.  You talk like we have lived fixed existences... people have also moved because of the climate... they will continue to do so...

Been away for a week and just found this reply.
To recap Zany used the phrase
"just so you can drag up a blogger who disagrees with 95% of climatologists."
I of course asked where was the evidence that 95% of climatologists has a specific view and now the result is in

Of course in the first instance the definitions are askew. You referred  to climatologists whereas the assessment refers to actively publishing climate scientists. This raises many questions as to what is an actively publishing climate scientist, (in fact one assessment weights the result by numbers of papers published by each one) is it only specific publications, are there editorial policies at  work which may skew the results. What about climate scientists who are not actively publishing. Many questions were asked by email with sometimes only about a quarter responding. The list of scientific groups referred to also includes many non climate science groups, should we also consider all non climate scientists who disagree with the  'consensus''

Once again the most up to date reference is to Cook et al. These have been debunked at length in many places. In summary he rejected papers that made no indication of support or otherwise of AGW  and used only publications that actually referred to AGW of which about 97% agreed with the supposed consensus. In other words just over 30% of the papers. The cat was finally out of the bag when he said that those papers that expressed no view could be assessed as accepting AGW as that was a theory that was accepted in the same way plate tectonics was accepted even when it was not mentioned. This is a classic example of by one's own bootstraps whereby you prove a consensus on a theory by saying there was a consensus on the theory.

I do not know what these are but they are not proof of any form of consensus of any theory. They meet the needs of a political directive to create a consensus and I sincerely hope as a businessman you are not swayed by this naked propaganda. If you are truly so then may I say your business may not last long if you rely on such to make your future commitments.