Not a troll. You got pwned.

+1

You will get a couple reads before the Al Gore's group-think council buries your post with "troll" mods.

Wal*Mart loses access to most of it's stock, America devolves into chaos.

The public also give strong support for "Jersey Shore"

Careful now - the Slashdot group-think monkeys have determined that criticism of the UN is forbidden. See my previous post, if you still can.

to really screw things up, we have the UN.

"Except for the climatologists, to whom it's about empirical data and the scientific method."
Riiiiight...
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/27/here-an-activist-there-an-activist/

"If you want to win this fight, you'll need to leave the sports bar..." ... and you need to step out of the Opium den.

Karma be damned.

"I give his political opinion about the same weight as I would give the scientific opinion of a winner of the Peace Prize."

Peace Prize? OH! You mean like all the authors of the IPCC AR report?

The next time you see someone from the IPCC flagged as a Nobel Laureate remember, it's NOT a science prize...

"but a lot means massive drops in food production "

What studies have you been reading? Higher CO2+warming increases plant growth and extends the growing season, this is elementary, and proven.

... you rabble-rouser you...

"The difference is that there's a physical mechanism for human effect on climate and that observations are matching calculations based on that physics."

Um no, the observations are definitely NOT matching the predictions. Not the IPCC predictions anyway.

Climate Scientists (the honest ones anyway) will admit that they still don't quite know how all the climate ingredients fit together, new climate drivers are still being uncovered. Adding a 'solution' to 'problem' that isn't fully understood will only produce disaster.

Maybe a couple honest skeptics will get to see this post before the bed-wetting alarmist sheep mod it down the memory hole.

"All-AGW-All-The-Time crowd"
Let's call them Watermelons - green on the outside, Red on the inside.

Skeptics are pro-objective. Even the main body of the IPCC AR report is filled with "maybe"s, "likely"s, and "possibly"s.
It's the summary for policy makers that's tacked-on to the end that's filled with "impending doom!" - it's an entriely political document, not a scientific one.

whoops, should read - "Only retards deny that the climate changes."