---------------------
Idiotic BS
---
Global warming isn’t natural, and here’s how we know
"when you claim that virtually all of the world’s climatologists are wrong and the earth is actually warming naturally, you have just placed the burden of proof on you to provide evidence for that claim. In other words, simply citing previous warming events does not prove that the current warming is natural. You have to actually provide evidence for a natural cause of the current warming, but (as I’ll explain shortly) no such mechanism exists."
The cornerstone argument of climate change deniers is that our current warming is just a natural cycle, and this claim is usually accompanied by the statement, “the planet has warmed naturally befo…
thelogicofscience.com
But it's not ALL of the climatologists. It's less than 40%. The "97% of scientists agree" BS is based on the ABSTRACTS (NOT the actual papers, just the abstracts) of 11,944 submissions between 1991-2011.
7,930 were excluded because they expressed NO opinion.
3,896 agreed we cause SOME warming, but not that we were the sole cause.
64 said we caused most of the warming.
41 said we're the cause of most of the warming since 1950.
NONE endorsed manmade catastrophe.
In other words, 66.4% has no opinion at all and, of the remainder, 32.6% said we cause SOME warming and only 0.8% said we were the big bad guys.
We're not disagreeing with most scientists, we're disagreeing with climate catastrophists, people who are making a financial killing as grifters for this crud, and the small number who think humans are a blight on the planet and need to die as fast as possible. Getting rid of fossil fuels and, especially, oil, should do that since what the cold doesn't kill, the lack of medical resources (often plastic or made using fossil fuels -- such as steel) should finish off. Remember, no oil means no man-made materials -- so you're back to wool, furs and leather to keep you warm in winter -- no computers or phones, no machines, no vehicles, no anaesthetics, no wind turbines (need fossil fuels and plastics) or solar panels (again...). We won't need green energy because there'll be nothing to power. No glasses for those with sight problems since they're made with plastic (oil) or glass (fossil fuels are required for the high temps to make the lenses). No ships or aircraft to ferry food in the winter from warmer climes to colder ones, so it's back to meat-eating for everyone (just as well if we're going to have to skin them to stay warm anyway), and no mass manufacturing of medicines to offset things like lack of Vit. B12 or pernicious anaemia (common to vegans without extra vitamins), so chow down on your local badgers. With the cows, sheep and pigs no longer allowed (methane), we'd better get creative with the squirrels.
This is what this scaremongering REALLY means. We won't be going back to the 1600's. We'll be lucky if we manage to hold at the medieval period with all the diseases and horrors of that time. THAT'S why we're dismissing this nonsense because, if they get their net zero, around 7 billion people, almost exclusively the poor and the disenfranchised will be murdered because there'll be no medicines, no help, no energy, no nothing. Meanwhile, the wealthy will be very happy, thank you very much, with their private farms, private herds, private energy reserves and private suppliers. That, in turn, will lead to wars, revolution and more mass murder. Net Zero will kill far more than a slow change in climate ever could. It is NOT The Day After Tomorrow. There won't be some giant tsunami flattening NY. The seas will rise, but slowly and, if we put money into barriers instead of boiling the soil beneath solar farms or killing hawks, dolphins and whales with wind farms, we might be able to offset the worst of it. Failing that, WE MOVE, just as our ancestors did millions of years ago when they decided to get out of Africa.