Perhaps you misunderstood about what I had meant by solid references.
Linking to the ThinkProgress blog, which is run by one of the worst alarmists is not a source that I would consider to be robust. How about some peer reviewed science for a change?
If sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is only around 0.55 Degrees C (which is a value that I have roughly calculated for the sensitivity based off of the ignored indirect solar forcing) then such claims are amazingly alarmist.
The IPCC's GCMs being higher than the observed with Arctic Sea Ice Extent may very well be due to the fact that the models underestimate the strong sources of natural variability that exist in nature.
There is no evidence that such extreme weather events have been fueled by Climate Change, it is simply meaningless speculation.
Also, you misuse the terminology of several words in your third paragraph. Just because I am a skeptic about the IPCC's AGW Hypothesis does not mean that I am not concerned about genuine environmental concerns like such that I have mentioned above.
You also deflected my question about deforestation legistlature. Where have you seen deforestation get as much attention as Climate Change does in Congress?
What counts as solid references in the court of snowy's brain? I posted a link to the Kinnard et al a paper appearing in Nature and you dismissed it. You are still making the same assertions that the record ice loss in the arctic can be handwaved away. However the fact that someone somewhere has suggested that cosmic rays and cloud levels are linked has convinced you that it's an Axiomatic truth. The fact that food prices have gone up is undisputed The fact that Climate change and drought and floods are linked is supported by many scientific papers The fact that the effects of climate change will increase in the future is also supported by solid research. You claim to be a climate change researcher, look shit up.
To be concerned about this is not a crime yet you attempt to drown out anyone expressing those concerns with nonsense why is that? Why would I know in depth about legislation in a different country anyway.
And I do know what a psychotic is, I would not have used that word otherwise
Stop trying to throw a red herring to divert the discussion.
I had asked for peer reviewed and scientific articles that specifically supported the notion that Climate Change would lead to more deaths, and you posted the ramblings of a random blogger, something that anyone can do. Not very impressive if you ask anyone objective on this subject.
Given that for some of your claims, there is no scientific rigor to back up, why should anyone take any of your claims seriously in the future?
You obviously do not know what the word psychotic means at all, or else you wouldn't have used it so grossly out of context.