Let's see if UK abandons its renewable energy policies and embraces fracking. Australia has abandoned the carbon tax. Japan might just back down too, though with its declining population it will happen long-term anyway. Other parts of Europe are losing interest. The Democrats participated in an all-nighter complaining about the issue, but the public isn't interested. Tuesday candidate Alex Sink lost in a district Obama won twice after pushing hard on climate change, branding her opponent a skeptic. And this was to a lobbyist who was campaigning around with a girlfriend 15 years younger after recently divorcing his wife.

Kano, you have told us before that the global warming would be limited to levels so low that it will prove to be insignificant. Now you want to tell us that global warming will have only positive benefits for us? You must be full fledged member of The United Cherry Pickers of the World.

Let us look at your first link - "See, global warming has a bright side". The title of the article is on global warming having a bright side and yet the article itself concerns itself with parts of British economy potentially seeing bright sides due to global warming. Nor does the article address the fact that this is a changing climate and will now always support these few, potential bright spots for Britain's economy. Nor does it mention all the potential dark spots to Britain's economy either due to global warming. There just wasn't much cherry picking to do there was there? You may as well know now that Johnathon Leake, the author of the article, has been caught misquoting others before. Source: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/...

Let us take a look at your second link - "Why climate change is good for the world". There is not much there to read, Kano. Well, unless you to pay for yearly subscription to read the rest of the article. So, how does Matt Ridley come to the conclusion that global warming will likely bring more good than harm. Well, there is enough text to read to see this part, "...it is the consensus of expert opinion.". Really? Who are these "experts" and have they based their opinions on the science or their emotions? We don't know! Why do we not know? There are not links to the supporting evidence! and yet you chose to believe this over the actual science concerning this? .. Well, who is Matt Ridley - "I have written about climate change and energy policy for more than 25 years. I have come to the conclusion that current energy and climate policy is probably more dangerous, both economically and ecologically, than climate change itself. This is not the same as arguing that climate has not changed or that mankind is not partly responsible. That the climate has changed because of man-made carbon dioxide I fully accept. What I do not accept is that the change is or will be damaging, or that current policy would prevent it." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Ridley ... is this one the expert opinions from your first link? Who knows? Another member of The United Cherry Pickers of the World?

What about your third link? - "Public apathy on climate change is a cause for celebration, not concern". - Perhaps another expert opinion for your first link? - From youre link: "Brendan O'Neill is editor of the online magazine spiked and is a columnist for the Big Issue in London and The Australian in, er, Australia. His SATIRE on environmentalism, Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas, is published by Hodder & Stoughton.". You can see m ore on Brendan's views here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_O%2... - Another expert opinion?

Where is the sanity that you are so desperately seeking, Kano? I mean the sanity in your linked articles and not your own sanity.

These denier set pieces always make me laugh, you are effectively saying 'look warming brings some benefits to some places' while you obviously are trying to ignore that if you admit it is warming you have to also admit the simple physics of what the average rise in temperature will also does to sea level and ice.

Or is this some special denier warmth that is able to ignore the basic rules of physics.

Oh dear !

This article to me highlights the FACT, as I have been exposing, human perception must be manipulated into belief AKA Mind control. The first few sentences sums it up. Mind control is needed to force human perception into belief in order to further the Orwellian agenda I talk so much about.

Well, Hey Doofus is admitting that CAGW is a lie (the catastrophic part at least) and a few other alarmists are supporting him in that statement. Perhaps the tide is changing.

(Alarmist sheep: I'm being sarcastic. I know you just want to cry and say "We just want to call you a liar about saying we ever claimed AGW would be catastrophic but still scare people by saying AGW will be catastrophic.")

Alarmists: "Whaaaaat? We never claimed AGW will be catastrophic. Where did you get that from?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2...

http://www.weather.com/news/science/envi...