Not mad at all. People like Leo need to be called out. Even though their constant refrain of "climate change is real" does enough damage by itself without my input. But we do need to point out the obvious and hammer it home once in a while.

Well yeah, the climate changes, always has and always will. it is most definitely real. Just, CO2 has very little to do with it. And restricting CO2 emissions is utterly pointless.

There is no consensus:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

there is little warming:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png

All the models were dead wrong:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b8d1a2564a970c-pi

CO2 has never ever led temperatures ever, and they are not leading temperatures now:

http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

The United Nations IPCC is a political panel. Scientists do not write their reports.

Here are a few quotes:

Quote by Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office: “The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models.”

Quote by David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University: “Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.”

Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quote by Richard Benedik, former U.S./UN bureaucrat: "A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect."

Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

Quote by Naomi Klein, anti-capitalism, pro-hysteria advocate of global warming: "So the need for another economic model is urgent, and if the climate justice movement can show that responding to climate change is the best chance for a more just economic system..."

Quote by Club of Rome: "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."

Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”

Quote by UN's Commission on Global Governance: "The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation."

edit: remove duplication

Feel free to check into the details. But just dismissing all of that out of hand seems a tad biased on your part.

And considering that the claim is that the entire planet is doomed and we have to completely decarbonize the economy and give the UN nearly a trillion dollars to somehow fix the problem, you'd think that you would want to put a little effort in to make sure it isn't what it appears to be by my post. I mean, due diligence dude. You gotta do your due diligence.

Two major claims of consensus. Naomi Oreskes and John Cook. Both crap science claims of a consensus. Fudged, cherry picked, statistically fraudulent, crap. Then the MSM ran off with many headlines claiming a consensus. These "studies" were so bad that Cook had one of his papers actually retracted. Do you know how rare and how bad it is to have a paper retracted?

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#6fcddb875909

http://www.thegwpf.com/naomi-oreskess-fantasy-consensus/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/

The Oregon Petition is full of names of very capable people with advanced degrees in fields not related and closely related to areas of climate, like geology and physics. 31,487 of them. Look at the name on the main page:

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Edward Teller. The most highly respected physicist on the planet, possibly of all time. I would tend to lean towards listening to what he says when it comes to physics, because in the end, climate change is absolutely entirely rooted in the physics of heat transfer.

edit: clarity

One of the original 97% or 98% consensus claims were based on polling something like 78 actual "scientists" all of whom claimed to be climate scientists.

LOL.

So out of the million scientists in America, as you claim, if we were to apply this number to a simple calculation, that comes out to a .0078% consensus. LOL. I know that that's bogus, but that sure is funny. Don't you think?

No. It was not a random sample poll. And there's yer problem.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

"...it was administered by a professional online survey site ( www.questionpro.com ) that allowed one-time participation by those who received the invitation."

"by those who received the invitation"

LOL.

No one "denies" that man hasn't had some impact on the climate. But that means very little. What is important is whether or not man has impacted climate to more than a tiny degree. If the amount of impact is barely measurable or even immeasurable, then we need not waste any resources on it.

So the wording used is exceedingly important and those putting the poll together and reporting on the poll did so in a less than honest manner.

edit: a word

In the end, global warming is happening. Is it catastrophic? Absolutely not.

At Copenhagen, Raj Pachauri, head of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Asked for 3% of global GDP which in 2008 terms amounted to just under a trillion dollars. Climategate put an end to that idea. That was in 2010.