A relatively localized natural disaster like this poll was talking about would not lead to that sort of breakdown of society.

But if things really broke down to that extent I think my relatives and their neighbors would probably be banding together to protect their little slice of heaven there in the foothills. I'd be a lot more concerned about some idiot shooting me on the way there than I would be about them shooting me when I get there.

I do multi-day whitewater rafting trips that last a week or so every year. As such I have a complete camp kitchen with propane stoves, charcoal grill and dutch ovens. After each trip I always top off the propane tanks and water jugs. I also have a ceramic water filter and a river toilet so I've got that covered. I have enough food in the cupboards to last several weeks. I also have a couple of small solar PV chargers that I can use to charge AA & AAA batteries and USB devices. More than a month things start to get a bit sketchier but by that time I probably would have made it to my relatives farm about 30 miles from here.

Oh, I'm going all MythBusters and mounting the spear on a JATO rocket.

Well actually there are some elements of rocket science in spear throwing. It's just that the method of propelling them has changed.

And idiots like me trying to call them out on it. :)

Of course the OP's statement was unfounded speculation with no basis behind it. The papers and researchers in question are all known so it should be possible to determine if he is right but it just sounds like hyperbole to me.

The article said the plants wouldn't germinate. Light is not required for germination, just water.

Absolutely. And extend that into the early 21st century.

Impossible for scientists to ignore, not that tough for the general public to ignore as most of the changes so far have been subtle, especially in the US. But as I said that's changing.

"Come to Jesus" was probably the wrong term to use (obviously it was with you). What I meant was that conditions will change in a way that forces more and more to confront the reality of climate change. Like I say I may be too optimistic about that. We'll see.

Nothing assumed about it, the term Anthropogenic Global Warming asserts that some portion of it is caused by human actions. The estimate is something between 80% and 120% of the warming is caused by human influences.

FTFY

The question is were the 66% of papers that expressed no opinion on anthropogenic global warming doing so because they are truly neutral or simply because it wasn't germane to the subject of the paper and they weren't just going to add it gratuitously?

I suspect the reason most of those papers didn't take a stance is because it wasn't germane to the science in their paper and they weren't just going to throw it in there gratuitously.

Also I think there are a lot of libertarians here who have a hard time with the implications of global warming as it relates to their economic ideology. They're more likely to rationalize away the science than adjust their ideology.

If you go back to Fourier's discovery of the greenhouse effect in 1824 it's damn near 200 years old.