runner, nobody claimed an eradication of snow in Europe. Indeed it was predicted that global warming could, by increasing meltwater from Greenland and hence altering the currents in the North Atlantic, make northern Europe colder. And we have seen some evidence of that already.

Of course reporting what the "warmists" actually said does not suit the ignorist narrative.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,

"And here I'm talking about utilising the most energy dense material in the world. Thorium!"
Thorium's significantly less energy dense than uranium - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

"What is wrong with mass produced, walk away safe, molten salt thorium reactors, and carbon free ultracheap power?"
The fact that they don't exist. You are relying on optimistic assumptions about technological development.

This would be a stronger article if it referred to the considerable research largely supporting its contention. For example:

"Doom and gloom won’t do it – here’s how to sell the climate change message": https://theconversation.com/doom-and-gloom-wont-do-it-heres-how-to-sell-the-climate-change-message-31999

"Why Psychology Should Be A Part Of The Fight Against Climate Change
By understanding emotional barriers to action, we may be able to devise better guidelines for communication, advocacy and policy."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/climate-change-psychology_us_5674272ee4b014efe0d52186

Climate Change Is A Major Threat To Us All, But Here’s Why You Might Not Care": http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/climate-change-psychology_us_571ead75e4b0f309baee5b9b

Dear Mark,

Doom and gloom?

The only doom and gloom I can see in this context is, your kind of people from the United-Nations coming to power and rule over us, taking our wealth away and giving it to 3rd-world countries so that they can breed even faster; or for your universities so they develop new technologies to depress us even further.

Even if this "climate change" hoax had any truth to it, I would be more worried about the implementation of measures "against it" then any changes to temperature, sea-levels and all that rubbish that would anyway only affect future generations.

Why would anyone ever be convinced by people who say one thing with their mouth, yet do the opposite with their penis/womb (and also use polluting jets to fly over to meet and greet, perhaps also screw, their friends in international "climate-conferences")?
If that hoax truly concerns you (of course not, your only concern is how to get money, power and sex out of it), then there is a very simple solution: STOP MAKING BABIES!

Had your data been correct and had you been honest about it, then you would know that nothing man ever did at this stage could make any significant change, but if there are to be no future generations, then not only would your self-inflicted-problem be solved, not only there will be nobody here to suffer the "consequences", but also the quality of life would improve for the few who would somehow remain on this planet without your ilk.

While this earth is likely to remain physically habitable for millions of years to come, it becomes increasingly less habitable for spiritual purposes due to human population numbers, ever increasing control and surveillance, ever increasing dependence on electronic gadgets, ever further away from the original purpose for which we acquired a body on this earth to live in. A purifying Tsunami that will wash away this civilisation would be a great thing, but if you can stop it voluntarily first, then no one will be hurt.

Yes it is bad for the whole earth