Repeating a false belief doesn't make it true, no matter how many people repeat it.

Hasmukh you obviously haven't been following the scientific debate on global warming because despite billions and billions and billions of dollars in funding by taxpayers, the support of all the governments you could care to mention, the support of all their propaganda arms, the support of all their dependent intellectuals, the support of the mass media, the support of all the bankers and corporations who could be and are corrupted by the huge sums of stolen money on offer, the warmists have consistently foundered on the fact that the DATA refuse to support them, and they refuse to debate the skeptics on the absurd and anti-scientific superstition that "the science is settled". Blatant dishonesty.

And as we have seen in here, over and over and over again, when challenged to show reason for their beliefs in climate policy, the warmists have NOTHING. All they can do is tell us of their open-ended credulity in what other authorities say, and to urge us to do the same. That's it. That's their entire belief system - the opposite of science.

But let's suppose - very much in your favour - that all the issues of climatology were conceded in your favour (which they're not).

You still would haven't established any problem, or any solution.

So show us how you have established that
1. the results of the warming would be worse rather than better. Show us how you took into account all the ecological factors of the whole world for both scenarios: the status quo and the policy you support. Show your workings.
2. the policy would produce results that are better rather than worse, when all the downsides are considered, in terms of the all the relevant human values, now and in the future, for both scenarios. Show your calculations.

PS Stop dishonestly calling it 'climate change'. Not even the high priests of your religion allege that that is the problem. What you're contending for is catastrophic man-made global warming that policy can improve at a worthwhile cost.

Go ahead. Prove it, or admit you have no rational basis for your belief system.

What delusion!

It is a pity that the author chooses to adopt an ideological approach -- not a scientific approach -- to the natural process of climate change.

Yes, especially in Tienanmen Square!
Rhrosty.

There might just be a little wishful counting on how many actually marched.

Be that as it may, & even at the most generous count we say a few hundred thousand did march, surely that means many thousands of millions did not march.

I think the no's have it old mate.

Jeepers !
I do hope the author reads the article today on South Australia and the results of the Green's influences on the saddened Adelaide populace.
We really do not wish to worry about consequences for Grand children when we may not be well fed enough to conceive them.V Deo