The very first line of this article is a half-baked talking point.

No argument presented.

No argument presented.

In your opinion.

You manage to cherry-pick your way to a temperature increase of about 0.075 degrees C in 19 years - about 0.38 degrees C in a century - hardly dangerous warming and in fact not even noticeable if it happened to you in 1 second. Are they meeting in Paris to try and prevent 0.38 degrees C of warming?

“As soon as your comments have some facts, I’ll be happy to talk about facts” You sure about that?

There are also finite amounts of the rare-earth minerals needed to build wind turbines and solar panels, so they’re not strictly renewable either under your definition.

Exxon *do* have pitifully small amounts of money compared to the US government.. Also, your position here is a strawman - who says giant amounts of money are needed to corrupt research? Most people these days are lucky to hang onto their jobs. (“Further research is needed!”)

Thanks! I’m doing my best to counter artiofab’s biased nonsense.

If you remove the misleading trend line from your graph, it can be seen that sea ice has been rising for nearly ten years. Also, it starts in 1979 which was a high point.

Skype would be a very effective way of doing this - thousands of people can’t all talk at once in a face-to-face meeting. I’m sure the 40,000 delegates, hangers-on and journalists complained bitterly about having to rough it up in private jets and four-star hotels.

What “pollution”, exactly? Also, what about the positive benefits of fossil fuels, which have powered our entire world civilisation?

You posted a graph earlier with no attribution.

Where is your reasoned argument? Shane Broussard’s comment is perfectly valid. A UN opinion poll of worldwide public opinion put climate change dead last out of twenty issues

You’re not confused. You obviously know the data is heavily-adjusted.

Where is the source of your graph? The first figure I found was 573,000 deaths per year due to wind farms in 2012 in the US. The figure would presumably be higher now. According to your graph, the figure for building strikes is maybe hundreds or thousands of times higher - that would put the figure into billions.…

jll3’s argument is well-founded and based on universally-observed aspects of human nature. Your counter-’argument’ is just a thin assertion which you repeat on here frequently. Are you saying that scientists are somehow the only class of people in the entire world who aren’t influenced by money, career prospects or…

The graph says “Fossils + Nuclear”.

Are you proposing nuclear powered trucks? Count me in.

Also, burning food is a much better idea than eating it.