The number of autism diagnoses is increasing, not necessarily the number of autistic people. Please not the difference. This is what happens when diagnosis improves. We've seen the same happen before when all sorts of diseases and conditions are discovered. By your logic AIDS doesn't exist, as before the 1980s no-one was diagnosed with it. See how ridiculous you sound? Probably not.

And found to be false. Your point? His data set was from experimentation he performed himself, so it's not as if the data could be shared and different conclusions made. When it comes to climatology, the data sets are shared all over the place, and anyone can check the methodology behind the collection of data, and the conclusions drawn from it. You comparing the two makes you sound as scientifically-illiterate as Jenny McCarthy. Are you happy now?

Because it won't be utopia? How do you know that warming those areas won't cause feedback which increases the temperature even more? Because that's a distinct possibility, given the huge amounts of methane trapped in the frozen ground. And, funnily enough, people like the weather where they live, as that's what they (and their cultures) are used to. Weird, I know.

Wonderful - you got one thing right, which I wasn't even referring to. It's the rest of your post which is drenched in inaccuracy and ignorance. You knowing how to spell Kyoto doesn't change that.

Then write your obviously-easy-to-write-if-all-the-science-can-be-rebutted-in-a-single-sentence paper, get it peer reviewed, and collect your Nobel prize and $1m. Go on! Wait, you can't? Because science is hard, you don't understand it, and they're not wrong? How weird!

It only equals readily-available plutonium with our currently-used fuel cycles. That will not always hold true.

Did you just discount his accurate reply, which showed that your entire post was fallacious? Weird. You claimed English keeps the pronunciation of words it has borrowed, which is patently false to anyone who knows about the Great Vowel Shift, and the associated shifts in other European languages. Again - weird you'd do that.

Ha! Here you go again! Hand-waiving the issues away as if they're due to some quality the US, and only the US, has. Hint: Diversity exists across the world. It was not invented or perfected in the US. Other diverse areas manage to not have the same problems you blame on diversity in the US. What is it with you and blaming minorities? You're worrying.

It's telling you seem to try to blame all inadequacies in the US on various subcultures. Very telling. It's almost as if you are racist, but don't even have the guts to admit it - your behaviour is indistinguishable. Nearly every single time I see someone criticise the US's performance in one area, you pop up, dribble the word "demographics" into the discussion, make some feeble excuse to try to not sound racist, then disappear again. You need help. Seriously. It seems it's you whose picked delusion. Racist, short-sighted, hate-filled, lazy delusion.

Niche is pronounced "neesh" in, at least, British English, fyi.

Your lack of knowledge of this subject is matched only by your hubris, which I suspect is why you can scream your ignorance for all to hear, and not realise just how ridiculous it makes you sound. The report may have been produced by a handful of people, but it is based on the peer-reviewed papers of thousands of scientists. You do know how science works, right? Because I'm starting to think you really don't. But I guess if that keeps you happy, that's all that matters.

Hint: they don't just use the surface air temperature. Funnily enough, you are not more clever than all the climatologists in the world, even if you think you are.

Yes, the climate in Russia, Canada and Northern Europe will be more suitable for crops, but their soil won't be. Canada's topsoil in the places you are talking about have been scraped away by glaciation, meaning they are next to useless for growing crops. Russia's permafrost will release massive amounts of methane when they melt, exacerbating the problem. Oceans will rise, swamping trillions of dollars' worth of city property (including many capital cities, and New York, for example). If you think it's not a big deal to have tens of millions of refugees, then you might need to re-evaluate your definition of "big deal", as that will cause untold pressure on infrastructure.

I guess if you don't actually look into what you claim, it all sounds peachy. It's once you actually do, and realise you are painting a rosy future not based on any actual science, do we realise we're in for quite a bumpy ride, to put it lightly. But you've already made up your mind, so this will fall on deaf ears.

There isn't a pause in warming, so that is irrelevant. None have predicted space Elephants either, which matters just as much.

Thermonuclear detonation? No. Not even close. You clearly have no idea of what you speak.