Progressive Professor Demands Death Penalty for Global Warming Skeptics and the Pope

What’s the worst that could happen? A few million dead at the hands of cretins who think that the death penalty is immoral unless they get to draw up the lists of who should be killed.

Given global fossil fuel trajectories, I agree...

[Revkin] Given global fossil fuel trajectories, I agree with Joe Romm here:

Yes, it is increasingly unlikely that we will adopt the aggressive but low-net-cost policies needed to stabilize at 450 ppm atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and then quickly come back to 350… (the rest).

But his “shame on you” blame-game reason for why this is the case…

— thanks in large part to the deniers, along with their political pals and media enablers.

…is utterly inadequate when you consider deep human dependence on fossil energy norms and behavioral “near and now” realities.

RealClimate: A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success

There is still no evidence suggesting that the GCR influence our climate in significant ways.

Twitter / Revkin: @tan123 @climate_skeptic ...

@tan123 @climate_skeptic @climatedepot 10-15% dismissive of #AGW (not to mention #CAGW) actually an overstatement: http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/fig1-May2011-2.jpg …

But Andy: You said "10-15 percent of society dismisses the idea that human-driven warming holds great peril".  Where's the "great peril" part in that link you provided?  

Please don't conflate "believing that CO2 might warm the planet a small amount" with "believing that CO2 might warm the planet enough to kill large numbers of people".