If you think so, then you have reading comprehension issues. Because when I have cited it, I have clearly stated that what it is refuting is that bullshit "97% consensus" claim made recently. I did not claim it says anything about the science itself, except that the survey purporting to show that "97%" was a BS parody of responsible statistics.

So did I. The data you cite was cherry-picked, so of course it supports your conclusion. Naomi Oreskes tried the same kind of literature cherry-picking about 10 years ago, and the method is no more statistically valid now than it was then. Get real.

Dude, shoving cherry picked selection of literature from an explicit searched for the phrase "climate change" just won't wash as science. I don't know why you think I'm stupid, but in my engineering statistics classes in college I learned better than to fall for that kind of BS.

Please cite these half-dozen other surveys. Hell... while most meteorologists are not "climate researchers" per se, they are professionals in the climate field, and their own survey of the members of their own professional association found a "consensus" of only 52%... but that isn't even the most interesting part. That was (from the linked abstract) that 2 of the top 3 predictors for belief in AGW were "perceived scientific consensus" and "liberal political ideology".

No surprise here.

The point being: I don't have to have access to contrary surveys to know that a particular survey was done using improper statistical methods. Suggesting that I do demonstrates a weak understanding of science.

Well, it's true I was speaking more of the U.S in that comment than the U.N., but here is some speculation:

UN is an organization that backs the whole one-world-government idea. And it is rather famous for thinking that if there were one, it would be that government.

Obviously one world government will not come about voluntarily. Proponents have historically supported the economic weakening of the U.S. (see Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, Louis McFadden, speech before Congress re: the Great Depression) in order to remove freedom and choice in the matter. They have also supported obliteration of any right to private ownership of firearms. (That latter is official U.N. policy by the way.)

What better way to control a country's economy than to control its energy production, and the very air everyone breathes?

Understand: I'm not saying this is all one giant conspiracy to subjugate you. But each of those individual things is true, and joining them together is at least plausible. I'm not trying to tell you it's one particular cause or another, only that there are plausible motivations -- far more than one -- to think the U.N. is being self-serving with its politics surrounding AGW.

You mean "could be", not "are", because it isn't happening. At least in the U.S.

More handouts than ever before, yet economic recovery from the government-caused 2008 disaster has been weak and relatively "jobless".

I wasn't joking: income inequality has gone UP in direct proportion to government "intervention" supposedly intended to help poor people.

You can't pay attention to just the intentions, man. It's the results that matter. And even if we assume all that intervention was well-intended, the results speak for themselves.

Part of the difference here could be that you're (apparently) not from the U.S. But let me tell you: in this country it hasn't worked, doesn't work, and isn't going to work.

Good to know. Thanks.

Don't forget that according to the UN Charter, not all of its members are equal. Some of them are a hell of a lot more "equal" than others.

That should scare people, especially those from smaller countries who think the UN would somehow be their savior. They're living in fantasyland.

This is the claim that deserves no respect, because it is simply wrong.

Look at the link I provided elsewhere in this thread. Read some of the papers. Or -- heaven forbid you should have to lift a finger -- go out and find some of it yourself, because there is lots of that science and it is all around you. It just isn't being spoon-fed to you by the evening news, which seems to be the reason you seem to think it doesn't exist.

You are doing exactly the kind of denying that you accuse others of. Do your own homework. Then get back to me, and maybe I'll listen.

Is it too much to ask of your imagination that you think up a couple of reasons on your own? It's not that hard to think of plausible motivations, including political power and money.

(If you don't understand how any of this links to money, here's a hint: just remember Obama's famous quote that "... energy costs will necessarily skyrocket.")

Well said, sir, and more polite than I have been. For the simple reason that I have been spit in the face far too often to have retained any tolerance for it.

I still try to be polite, at least to those who have been polite to me. But after a few years of trying to argue the facts to so many face-spitters, the nonsense does get tiring.

That one link got messed up. Here's the correct one.

This is such an crazy claim, it's you who should be compared to creationists.

I have news for you, man. Evolution does not have a strong body of contrary science saying it's wrong. But AGW (which is what almost everybody really means when they say "climate change") DOES have such a body of science challenging its validity, including many peer-reviewed papers.

And that is not even close to a comprehensive list. There are also physicists who worked for NASA, and other science professionals, currently challenging the very foundations of AGW theory.

And it isn't

... in fact it is http://joannenova.com.au/2013/...">a relatively small, rather incestuous group who try to lie with statistics to "prove" their cause to the populace, by doing things like cherry-picking papers in order to claim a bogus "97% consensus". (Note: Monckton did not compile that information, he just wrote about it.)

Further, a recent survey of meteorologists found that 2 factors, "perceived consensus" and "political ideology" were the 2 primary factors in members' opinions about AGW. (The "consensus" there, by the way, is 52%.)

I could go on for ages. So... what was that about creationism again? Pardon me, but your ideology is showing. By denying the existence of the science that contradicts your point of view, it is YOU who ends up looking like the ideologue and denialist.

Pardon me... my own mistake. I was confusing part of what you wrote about right-wing with part of what someone else wrote. Mea culpa.

Which temperatures, and according to whom?

... at the expense of a healthy productive economy.

There, fixed that for you.

Government handouts are not production. Government does not produce wealth, production does. Government handouts (according to some rather famous studies) cost about $2 in production for every $1 in handouts.

If you want to ruin the economy, that's the way to go. Just ask Greece and Spain for example.

Just no. The intended effect might be exponential, but the actual effect as shown is in linear dollars, because the actual effect on costs is not logarithmic, it's linear. Where did you study information presentation? You're suggesting I use a misleading measure of actual results, simply because of the intent of the policy? That's crazy.

As someone else in this thread has already pointed out: prices are relative to other prices in trade. That's how they're measured. This graph is an accurate representation of what cost of goods are today compared to past times, in term of trade values.

Nonsense. Inflation hurts everybody who saves. (When interest is lower than inflation, as it is now, money in the bank loses real value.) And it is the same with any other interest-bearing investment. When inflation is high, it directly affects what the real return is on your investment. 10% annual return with 5% annual inflation gives you an actual return of only 5%. It's that simple. And 2% interest from your savings account loses money when inflation is over 2% (as it consistently has been for years).

The fact that inflation harms savings is simple elementary-school-level math. And since the real health of an economy is measured largely by production capacity + savings, any harm to savings is relative harm to the economy.

Bullshit. It's called "history". Apparently I've studied the history of our economy, and you haven't.

The Hoover and FDR governments had spent more money (and in the case of FDR, planned to spend even more) than they had gold to back. The elimination of the internal gold standard was a direct result. The same with Johnson and Nixon. Other countries were calling for the U.S. to make good on its debt, and because of the Bretton-Woods system, that debt was still tied to gold. But the U.S. didn't have that gold because the government had already spent the money. Nixon axed Bretton-Woods as a direct result of that government debt. And, just for giggles, it should be noted that contrary to Obama's claims about default, in effect Nixon defaulted on U.S. debt in the process.

You can talk about your theory all you want, man, but it doesn't trump history. Reality prevails over ideology.

He "proved" that, did he? And how, pray tell, is he supposed to have proved that?