I didn't ignore your post. Our posts simply crossed.

You need to get a grip. As before, as you become increasingly aware of the paucity of evidence for your beliefs, you start lashing out.

Despite your quotation marks I didn't say I hate Wikipedia. I use it regularly. I just don't rely on what it says about climate. Since i was one of the 2000 or so contributors banned by Connelley I have no desire to rejoin that particular battle.

As to your AR5 quotes, let me just remind you of what we were discussing here.

The original article said that there are at least 8000 extinctions per year CURRENTLY happening. My idea of logic says that you can't justify or defend that type of lunacy by showing that some people are predicting large numbers of extinctions in the future. Clearly your idea of logic is different.

Equally my point was that there is no consensus among scientists about the future temperatures and whether there'll be catastrophic consequences of a failure to act now.

I don't dispute that there are some scientists who say this, but that doesn't mean that all or most or even a plurality say it.

So when you run around claiming that THE science is on your side and that anyone who disagrees with your particular brand of chicken-littleness is anti-science, its just bonkers or alarmist - apologies for the tautology.

Hi Mhaze,

You appear to be relying on the Goebbels maxims:

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

>>So again where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its (the 2c limit) valid? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its dangerous?<<
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif

Then, if in doubt that people believe you, just repeat!
>>Equally my point was that there is no consensus among scientists about the future temperatures and whether there'll be catastrophic consequences of a failure to act now.<<

The IPCC consensus can be summed up in 5 words.

THE HOTTER, THE MORE DANGER

You’re playing semantic games and straining at gnats in pedantic little riddles. Yes, the climate appears to be MORE sensitive than we first thought, and Phil Jones is attacking the 2 degree limit because that might be way too generous! The reality might be we have to stop emissions far earlier than 2 degrees!

Stop playing semantic games to hide from the truth, and actually read some of the reports you claim don’t exist. The hotter, the more danger. It’s not hard. It’s not one arbitrary number or limit, but an exponential curve where 2 degrees will profoundly wound our lifestyle and global economy, 4 degrees risks civilisation itself, and may even plunge us into feedback loops that take us through to 12 degrees, hell on earth!

IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-1.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

Clickable link:
http://tinyurl.com/pahrayn

Put up or shut up about that wikipedia page on the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

All you have to do is find ONE National Academy of Science that disagrees with the IPCC consensus. Just one climate department in any peer-reviewed National Academy of Science on the planet. I thought you implied that page was terribly trolled and there was another reality out there... are you having trouble finding the 'reality' you like? Just one? Or is that too hard?

Max wants to divert us from the fact that he has no science to justify his support for climate fraud. He says:" All you have to do is find ONE National Academy of Science that disagrees with the IPCC consensus. Just one climate department in any peer-reviewed National Academy of Science".Nonsense, Max, the onus is on you.
He has nothing but his dishonesty, and believes that the dishonesty of the Academies somehow assists him.
It does not, Max. They have no science , so their support is worth what the support of the Royal Society was worth, when a fraud supporting statement was procured from it. It had no science, so it was worth what the national academy is worth, nothing.
Your dishonesty persuades no one, and neither will theirs. You still have your status as dunce of the school, but nothing else, not even a minimal grasp of science.

Oh, it's Leo. That's a shame. Mhaze, where are you?

Your puerile slogan, Max:” THE HOTTER, THE MORE DANGER “ shows your tenuous grasp of climate science: Stanford University is some help:
“ Warmer periods bring benign rather than more violent weather. Milder temperatures will induce more evaporation from oceans and thus more rainfall -- where it will fall we cannot be sure but the earth as a whole should receive greater precipitation. Meteorologists now believe that any rise in sea levels over the next century will be at most a foot or more, not twenty.[2] In addition, Mitchell flunks history: around 6,000 years ago the earth sustained temperatures that were probably more than four degrees Fahrenheit hotter than those of the twentieth century, yet mankind flourished. The Sahara desert bloomed with plants, and water loving animals such as hippopotamuses wallowed in rivers and lakes. Dense forests carpeted Europe from the Alps to Scandinavia. The Midwest of the United States was somewhat drier than it is today, similar to contemporary western Kansas or eastern Colorado; but Canada enjoyed a warmer climate and more rainfall.”
https://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Humanity prospers during global warming.

If climate liars were locked up, Gore would be put away for life.

Hi Mhaze,
just a reminder that the wiki on Scientific Opinion on Climate Change stands until you can show *one* case where your conspiracy theory about it is verified. Just one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Unfortunately for you that means finding a National Academy of Science that disagrees with the IPCC consensus, and as far as I am aware, there aren't any. Which begs the question: *what* conspiracy of trolling on wikipedia?

All you have is evidence that a known pro-climate troll was banned. Are you going to pretend that no denialist trolls have ever been banned from wikipedia? So for this reason, because ONE article on a right-wing website discussed ONE particular case of wikipedia trolling, you're just going to snub it as a good collection of source-documents to investigate? Tinfoil hat much? My oh my, what a cliche you have become.