Global Warming could make Humans EXTINCT within 50 years

You might like to check  my earlier article about the precautionary principle. We take out insurance policies on our homes because the policy costs a lot less than the damage if something were to happen to the house. But the "insurance policy" here is a total crippling of the economies of all countries - living in the dark without heating, without transport, with costs of everything through the roof, all for a temperature "saving" of a few tenths of a degree in a hundred years. And unlike careening a car around a curve, in this case there is every likelihood that a warmer world is a more hospitable and productive world than we have now.  Every generation of humans until this one has welcomed warmth and feared cold!

Here's the bottom line: More CO2 makes plants grow faster and bigger- between 20 and 70% faster. That is a fact proved by thousands upon thousands of actual comparative experiments. That means that it is a simple actual proven demonstrable fact that human-produced CO2 has fed a billion people who would otherwise have starved to death or encroached on wildlife areas to get food. That's a fact. What is there on the other side of the ledger to make it worthwhile to try to reduce CO2 and thereby throw those people into starvation? Tell me, I want to know. There is no credible evidence that CO2 causes dangerous warming and heaps of evidence that it doesn't. The models' predicted hotspot in missing. Earth's radiation into space has now been measured and proves that feedback is negative, not positive as the global warming theory requires. The theory is wrong, known to be wrong, and trusting it will starve a billion people. How on earth does avoiding that disaster resemble recklessly careening a car around a curve? Please let me know, I just don't understand how people think who can say what you just said.

Sorry if these remarks sound harsh, but the damage from believing this scam is far too great to waste time being tactful.

First off, "life gives lemons", this is a blog, not a research journal. Do your own googling. Wattsupwiththat.com has articles on just about every aspect of the problem you could care to look at. You'll find the record of research showing how every 'green' job eliminates 2.2 real jobs, how Spain has become Europe's basket case pursuing wind energy, how Denmark, with one of the most extensive wind turbine installations in the world, has never used any of it for its own purposes because it requires a coal plant to stand by due to unpredictability of the wind, and so it sells it all to Norway which is almost uniquely blessed with rapid-switching hydroelectric power thanks to the geography of the country. What do you want to research? It's all out there for any other than a lazy sod to discover for themselves.

Then you give us a URL to a typical alarmist site. I have pulled apart a good dozen alarmist 'papers' and in every case never found that they are substantiated. Not being employed, I don't have the time to waste doing it for yet another.

What if I am wrong? Human-produced CO2 is feeding a billion people. (You want a reference, go to co2science.org, look up the plant growth figures under extra CO2, take the CO2 increase since industrialisation, calculate the extra food produced above the baseline. It isn't hard, do some work.) What it you are wrong? Heck, what if you are right?? What is there in the warmist scare scenario that is worth starving a billion people to death? If you took the trouble to look on this very site, you will find my answer to the 'precautionary principle' - in detail.

After that, your comments are contemptible. All of your hostile, irrelevant, and insulting questions can be very well - and with better justification - asked of you in return. And as for your final remark, make no mistake, I know perfectly well what game alarmists are playing. There is a psychological phenomenon called the "winds of hate". It is the reason why naval personnel usually come through a war better off than soldiers. Sailors shoot weapons from ship to ship, but soldiers have to look at the enemy in the eye and see the fear, the hate, the killing intentions - the wind of hate, in short, which can have devastating psychological consequences. That is the nasty little game being played - throw out accusations known full well to be untrue, simply for the hurt and damage done to the victims who the alarmists, truly, do hate. But other than to make me become more determined to expose the entire sick scam, this game has no effect on me. To other sincere folk who are the target of nastiness such as this, I add: I hope you understand that this is an orchestrated campaign of hate against those of us prepared to stand up for the truth. Don't allow it to succeed.