Nonsense! Frank Wentz et al shows by actual measurements during a known warming period between 1986 and 2005 precipitation increased by 1.1% and 1.2% or by 6.5%/C. This is hard science people.

The only way for drought to increase is by cooling. GK

Your choice of words reflects the punitive and discounting bias that I see regularly in the ranks of climate change alarmists. The general message is if you agree with the assertion that climate change is entirely anthropogenic you are a legitimate scientist. If you disagree, you are obviously a blogger or newspaper reporter.

Science is not a popularity contest or numbers game. Rational science is not led by consensus or political agenda. It is when grant money is doled out to one side of the debate and almost entirely withheld from the other; when peer review is granted only to confirming abstracts; when debate occurs only inside appointed governmental panels, that I raise serious questions about the role consensus plays.

There is indeed a significant and growing body of climate scientists (in the thousands), among them Nobel Prize winners, who are voicing skepticism over the very weak body of evidence for anthropogenic forced climate change. Anyone who says that the debate is over and the results are in makes the claim using anything but scientific methods and ignores the growing body of evidence that sheds new light on albedo forcings almost completely ignored in UPCC reports and climate models to this day.

UPCC’s chairman, Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri’s recent comments comparing skeptics to “Flat Earthers” further underscores the strongly biased and closed mind of the UPCC towards any research findings that don’t fit with political agenda. He and others like yourself, who make such discounting remarks, do little to promote legitimacy of your message to an increasingly informed and skeptical public.

There is no consensus that humans have cause d global warming. In fact, there is no consensus that there is global warming. Humans are not a pathogen.

Besides, warming might be very beneficial. However, it looks more like the earth is heading to its more commom cold cycle.

Do we know everything there is to know about the causes of cancer? Of course not, but does that mean that we should do nothing to combat it? Let me assure you, as an environmental scientist, and one who has spent a fair amount of time reading the studies by atmospheric scientists, as opposed to blogs and editorials by non-scientists, enough is known about the causes and potential impacts of global warming on both humans and other species that immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the unavoidable impacts.

BTW, the statement about animals preferring warmer climates belies serious ignorance about ecosystems and biology on the part of the writer. BTW, the concern about cows has to do with METHANE, not MONOXIDE.

If you don’t care about that … no one can make you care.

We write about “the negatives” of global warming because that is what the scientific research reflects.