Bring the hammer down - 'climate change deniers are dangerous' and being banished from The Conversation, page-1704

Oh so you knew about the scientists already? The IPCC is a political body which oversees the climate change discussion. The political aspect immediately suggest to me that it is exposed to bias and there is an established political view that they will accept. With that, they have a strict view of who is and isn't a climate scientist. Of course this is my opinion based on my experience of political bodies so I share my view.

I am not going to isolate and condemn individual scientists in that list of 500, if you have in mind some particular rogues in the list, then include your particular concerns. I have no doubt there are some fools on the denier side who have fluked being on the right side of the debate imo, it doesn't mean anything. There's rogues everywhere, but when the poster childs of a discussion are politicians and a heavily influenced school child who would be ritually slaughtered if she ever thought differently, then I see the alarmists as having the biggest problem in this area.

There is an expected narrative to all of the submitted journals, that is my opinion. So, if you think a 0.012% increase in CO2 over 150 years is both dangerous and man made then fine, I disagree. CO2 levels are still well below a level at which plants would absolutely thrive, again if you disagree then you're wrong. CO2 emissions have grown exponentially, CO2 in the atmosphere has grown linearly. The CO2 is being absorbed by plants who would continue to absorb and thrive at levels much higher than currently exist. The Amazon has been reforested and various supposedly devastated areas have recovered. CO2 changes track (follow) temperature changes, there are a myriad of reasons why the temperature increases. Downsizing our major source of energy to address some concerns is an extreme reaction. My observations are that this is rarely reported. The current stage of the interglacial cycle we are in matches previous cycles as best as can be measured. I'm not saying this means we are in the clear, but nor does it close the debate.

So I'm not intentionally trying to create a dramatic effect, that is the preserve of some of the climate alarmists. For example, I try not to make predictions of doom and gloom based on the concerns of a heavily manipulated youngster at a climate change summit. That's dramatic effect.