Yes, billyd, no science to support your nonsense, just meaningless dishonest waffle, and you have the gall to ask me stupid questions
There is no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, so the claim that reducing human emissions will reduce global warming, is baseless nonsense. The assertions by the IPCC of the effect of carbon dioxide have failed.
Professor Robert Carter gives an excellent summary of the failed hypothesis of climate fraud promoters regarding the effect of CO2.
“The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that, over the 20th century, global average temperature increased by about 0.7C, which it did, if you accept that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate. More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the "little Ice Ages" in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the "global warming", alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere
However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
What would you say, billy-goat, if the fraud promoters you support were able to wreak economic havoc, because we acted on their nonsense when there is no science to support their lies?

We are all lucky that Trump has the top job because Hillary wanted war with Russia. The deep state is now at war with itself and the masses due to the alternate media is awakening. Hillary is trying to blame her defeat on the Russians. The Reds are under our beds once again but the more likely revelations of PIZZA Gate and John Podesta , demonstrates that the Peds are under our beds.http://sgtreport.com/2016/11/pizzagate-is-a-worldwide-citizen-investigation-now/

People like Billyd are pretty much beyond rational discourse.

Not only irrational, but pig ignorant: "...it was a severely undemocratic voting system that got him over the line..." That system was intended by the US constitutional founders to counteract the power of the mob so that it reflected the wishes of the broader population. California and New York account for most of the Hitlery vote. Without either of them, Trump would have had a popular majority. Why would anyone think that it's "democratic" to let the snowflakes, neurotics and psychotics of the Left - concentrated in New York and California - dictate to the rest of the US? The electoral college system worked: it is a weighted average, and very little different from our own system, where a majority vote is less important than the number of seats won.

And by the way, Billyd, Abraham Lincolm was elected in November 1860 with 40 per cent of the popular vote. Any thoughts on that?

Coincidentally, Don Aitkin has published an excellent summary of Judith Curry's assessment of the current state of global warming alarmism:

"What are the facts in the climate science debate?
+Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
+Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectrum
+Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

"That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

"Human-caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human-caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this." Visit donaitkin.com.

We do know, however, that historical climate data has been fraudulently "adjusted" and a lot of it "lost" or destroyed by promoters of the global warming scam so that their lies cannot be disproved. We also know that the satellite and balloon records show temperatures lower than the "adjusted" surface records. And we know there has been virtually no warming for nearly 20 years, despite increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The global warming scam has been running since the mid to late 1970s. Of the thousands of predicted catastrophes attributed to "dangerous global warming" since then, not one has come to pass. Not one. Check the "warmlist" at numberwatch.co.uk.

Fifty years from now, Billyd, we'll look back and see that governments have wasted trillions of dollars on a hoax.

Saral Sarkar's analysis is one of the more sensible and perceptive short pieces I have seen. Most commentators are way off the real topic which is the sociological and psychological background to Trump's appeal, embedded in the mantra of globalised growth delusion and denial of the world's population problem. Political and economic obsession with economic growth, with the concomitant failure to see the relationship of that with population, is what Sarkar is really aiming at. The fact that climate change is an outcome of the aforesaid global obsession should not blind us to the human causes as well as the human reaction to economic disadvantage that is the lot of many people in the evolving globalisation and its fallout.

@ diver dan ... what happened 10k years ago is irrelevant, this is now, post Industrial Revolution, the worry now is accelerated climate warming partly brought about by humans.

@ Leo Lane ... same old cherry picking, and once again refusing to answer my question. The truth is, you can't answer, because it's an embarrassment to you, if you could think of an intelligent reply, you would.

@ calwest ... the electoral college was intended for the election of members of congress, not the election of a president, where it is totally unnecessary. The presidential election is a straight vote, one against the other, what does the electoral college bring to the table? Nothing! The people voted for Clinton, they got Trump, FACT!