Stu,
It is clear from Paris that NO ONE in positions of authority take the crap they are peddling seriously at all!
An unenforceable non-binding non-treaty that even if it was followed wouldn't meet the scientific goals is loudly celebrated as a "success"
Pretty clear by their own actions THEY don't believe in AGW.
Great links by the way. the first one opens with
Although most scientists are convinced that global warming is very real, a few still harbor doubts.
So are those scientists scientifically illiterate? You seem to think so.
Though you may have missed it, the article only discusses the facts of global warming. AGW isn't even a component of the article.
Your second one is from that bastion of truth and correctness, Wikipedia.
The third is just a link to a hodgepodge of articles, not all of which are claiming global warming is bad.
Really outdone yourself with your detailed research once again!
You also do nothing but "proof by blatant assertion" that the only people making a fuss are those who stand to lose money.
You back this up with nothing, disregarding completely that some of the largest supporters of AGW are in it FOR THE MONEY as well as the fact that there are a number of folks who have no financial connection to the issue whatsoever are not convinced.
judithcurry.com
Judith Curry is but one scientist who has no financial interest and is a skeptic. There are many others. So much for your "only" claim.
For that matter Hussar is once again showing his true colors as well as his lack of knowledge on the subject by ignoring legitimate scientific research.
link
Is a presentation by a gent who runs a think tank that has identified a number of much better returns of benefit for money spent on improving the world than climate change.
He too, and his organization aren't financially connected.
You two should really do a better job before making uninformed and sweeping statements that are so easily refuted. But then, Stu has a history that he may be trying to continue following his not understanding what "crime rate" means, and also his bogus claims on how perfectly correct he was on how well Afghanistan was running before the coup.
Still waiting for that book list that supports your (once again) sweeping and unfounded claims.
But hey, as long as you want to keep your embarrassment streak going, I'll be more than happy to oblige.
