With at least 6 times the number of people know who need to be fed and fueled, the famine of that time would be mass starvation and mass death through hypothermia the next time around. And it will happen again . . . and again . . . and again.

Wasting our money and resources in attempting to deal with a little bit of warming, even if that would be to happen, which I very much doubt, will make quite sure that there is no money or resources to deal with very real problems when they do happen, as they surely will.

Here’s an old trick I learned from James Hansen, just take one year out of the average. Wow! Is it cold in here or what?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2009/trend

Yes, I can understand.

But cooler weather means less bikinis. :-(

“…the IPCC stated unequivocally that the reason CO2 is deemed the cause of GW is because there are no natural forcings that could cause the warming.”

This is a fine example of an argumentum ad ignorantiam: the fallacy of assuming something is true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. They argue that CO2 causes global warming because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it does not. They are trying to put scientific skeptics in the position of having to prove a negative.

The fact that there are numerous other completely natural forcings that swamp any small effect from CO2 is not given any credence by the UN/IPCC and the rest of the alarmist crowd. They have made up their minds that CO2 is the cause of global warming; that human activity is the main cause of the rise in CO2 [false; only about 3% of CO2 is caused by human activity], and that they alone have the means to save humanity. All it will take is the transfer of $trillions from taxpayers in the U.S. and the West to grossly polluted countries like China, and to the scurrilous, truly evil reprobates in the UN.

The fact that they are deliberately lying is finally becoming apparent to the general public. Climate alarmists lie for money and control, or because they are afflicted with cognitive dissonance. Science has nothing to do with their conniving game playing.

“In fact, if you plot the world temperatures from 2000 to 2009 you will see a slight increase in temperatures.”

And, if you do it from 2001 you get a decrease. All this means is that the time period is too small. 30 years is likely too small as well. In fact, any useful conclusions probably require 100s (if not 1000s) of years which we don’t have on a global basis.

So many claims based on very little data.

A few, like Vicky Pope, realize this problem. RW should take the hint.

NZ also had a cold October.”

Now that is interesting. NH cold, SH cold…I can’t burn wood here, so many have to spend more time warming up the wife (Global cooling *does* have positive spin-offs after all).

See
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2009/plot/uah/from:2000/to:2009/trend

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/coldest-october-since-1945-in-nz-3107957

Ron de Haan (14:23:58) :

“The snow that the Chinese have displaced is like the irritation of a virus to Climate. It will keep after it until it succeeds in collapsing that void, with force. It would be far better to move the Capital than move the snow”.

You’re quite right,
I thought the experiment was interesting since Moscow want want to use the same technology to keep snow out of the inner city.
Engineering the local weather growing fashionable these day’s
One advantage compared to the AGW mitigation, this time they do it to protect crops from hail, watering dry area’s or saving money on snow clearing, hence they keep an eye on the economic aspects. AGW mitigation is one big black hole and a lot of risks.