30-minute presentation by Ivar Giaever, 01 July 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0

If you are an Alarmist - DO NOT WATCH!!

You might be forced to think.

It is always good to hear dissenting opinions. Few believe climate change do not exist, some that it does exist but is not man made, again some that it exists and is man made but not that serious.

However, there is a clear consensus among scientists and world governments:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.un.org/climatechange/
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/eccp/index_en.htm 

Major business now take climate change into accounts when making projections and risks assessment.

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/exxon-mobil-gets-subpoena-from-n-y-regarding-climate-change-research-1446760684
http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/harnessing-the-markets.html

For the ones who prefer videos:

 

International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme

Science is not built on consensus - it is built on the "Scientific Method."

"Research is the process of proposing the null hypothesis, gathering data, subjecting it to a statistical test, and either rejecting or failing to reject the null." - Prof Terry Lovell

Here is one of the perhaps most convincing ways to test hypothesis in regards to climate changes. Accurate measurements of sea level rise:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2015/aug/28/nasa-sea-levels-rising-human-climate-change-video

Not true, most laymen reject AGW.  They correctly believe that they are being misled.

Regarding Inidans & the Environment:

"Among other things, they engaged in slash-and-burn agriculture, destroyed forests and grasslands, and wiped out entire animal populations (on the assumption that animals felled in a hunt would be reanimated in even larger numbers)."

I did no such thing.  Get a grip.

I did play baseball against Indians when I was a kid.

Hold everything Dick Tracey : 200 years ago there was a mini ice age where Europe was frozen over in the summer .  In 1964 when i moved to Wisconsin ,in Baileys Harbor it snowed on the 4th of July parade . how can anyone deny that we have a global warning soon to have a global cooling ?  Any suprise this cycle of cooling and warming continues .  The sun consumes 600 million tons of hydrogen per second ; ie . eventually a massive global cooling will be evident ...Where is my cape ?

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

The global warming controversy concerns the public debate over whether global warming is occurring, how much has occurred in modern times, what has caused it, what its effects will be, whether any action should be taken to curb it, and if so what that action should be. In the scientific literature, there is a strong consensus that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is caused by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]} No scientific body of national or international standing disagrees with this view,^[8] though a few organizations with members in extractive industries hold non-committal positions.^[9] Disputes over the key scientific facts of global warming are now more prevalent in the popular media than in the scientific literature, where such issues are treated as resolved, and more prevalent in the United States than globally.^[10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

"Science is not built on consensus"? What is that even supposed to mean?

Status quo in any given field is dictated by consensus in the scientific community. Luckily, in the scientific community they don't care about your opinion.

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

You're right, I don't know why I fed this inane thread. Untracked.

I noticed that the ice in my Diet Coke melted a lot faster three months ago.  Therefore, we must be heading towards another ice age.

It means real, hard science is based on methodology and experimentation, not a vote of so-called experts.  

"Climate scientists" (sic - a misnomer) are not the Oracles of Delphi.

The problem with the "journal papers" argument is that a small clique of so-called "climate scientists" control and limit access to key journals.  It is a highly incestuous relationship.

However, I can provide links to many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that disagree and refute key aspects of AGW orthodoxy.  Metastudies like the one quoted above, amount to nothing more that sloppily produced propaganda.

A good example of data manipulation by prominent AGW Alarmists - in this case, Michael Mann's infamous "Hockey Stick" farce:

Good, Jamie, I'm with you on this one!!

But what do you think about chemo-trails? And the Illuminati? And the idea of diluting the Earth population to 500 million people (!), among other things through intentional, underhanded use of multi-Terravolt powerplants in order to produce climatic calamities (no aliteration intended) ?

<Chess is my heaven> I'm totally with you. The fact that someone even dares to ask such a stupid question as "what is the point of your 'rant'" is revolting and outrageous. Some people have no heart.