@Geezer.

You don't have to explain that to me, it was clear from the beginning that you were using that method.

Adam Brandon, a spokesman for the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks, one of several groups involved in organizing Tea Party protests, says the group gives Alinsky's Rules for Radicals to its top leadership members. A shortened guide called Rules for Patriots is distributed to its entire network. In a January 2012 story that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, citing the organization's tactic of sending activists to town-hall meetings, Brandon explained, "his [Alinsky's] tactics when it comes to grass-roots organizing are incredibly effective." Former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey also gives copies of Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals to Tea Party leaders.

Source: Wikipedia

Good throw in some more conservative right wing anti big government groups like FreedomWorks.

Pity you only remembered that lime from Alinsky. He was a big inspiration as well for Mr Evil in the White House

@Geezer.

You read "I don't give shit about science, logic, data or math" in my post. Funny that is. I am fully for the use of science, logic, data and even math. Just tried to debunk the doubters by showing that their sources are not based on science, logic, data and math but on a political agenda which is indeed conservative and rightwing and propagated by the Tea Party. All your sources known for their love of the use of science, logic, data and even math.

In my listing in an earlier post I summed up the quoted sources for the discussion here and the only one brought in to proof your point not being rightwing conservative was brought in by the vicar because he had not read the story or not understood it (That is NASA).

You can not accuse me of a "hyper "chicken little" mentality", I never used that anywhere.
Your statement "These changes seem to be of the type that demand increased government control of everything." Looks more like a "hyper "chicken little" mentality".
Your statement "The US is looking into how people like me can be prosecuted, possibly jailed" is pathetic. Poor little Geezer ending up in jail for defending math. And then going on again about your 97%. Sorry but you brought that point in yourself. Probably the tunnel vision of a mathematician.

Anyway it is now all clear to me. You are the crusader against big government which is going to take it all away from you. Your guns, your F150 and your God given right to pollute. Yes the President, that evil alien Obama, that Qadaffi of the White House, that undercover Muslim yes he controls everything. The NASA, NOA, the EPA all write exactly what he says. Come on get serious; Obama cannot even stop certified idiots from buying assault rifles on the internet and amo by the truckload on country fairs.
Well now I understand why he is working on prison reform: has to clear some space for Geezer and the other martyrs of math.

Thanks God there are coming elections and The Donald, or otherwise Ted or Rubi, will set things right. Get these tree huggers out of the Pentagon and bring in Halliburton and friends. Those are real man that know how to hold a gun and know who the real enemy is.

Meanwhile:
Napoleon found an other hobby in "animals you can't take care off"
Vicar is busy brushing up his math after swallowing 56 paracetamol tables.
Geezer can take time off write his 360 page proof that 97% is wrong to be used in his defense when he will be prosecuted.
And I go outside and hug some trees whose branches have been cut off, after all that is what this whole discussion was originally about.

Sorry Norwegians; that was a joke.

@Geezer,

Frankly your mathematical bla bla about this 97% or even 99.5% does not interest me a bit. I really could not care about this and see this not as proof of pro or contra.
You could do analyses of web articles on Spontaneous Human Combustion and you probably will find 97 to 99.5 % articles claiming it to be true. That does not however make it so because not a single serious person in this world will sustain it and you will find 97 to 99.5% nutters who write that it is not only true but that they have seen it themselves.
It is not which percentage is pro or contra but who are these people and what interest do they represent.

Until now the score here on this forum is:

Pro: backed by EFA, Pentagon, NASA, UN-IPCC and EU

Contra backed by: Plimer, climatecooling.org with a report from 1974 who's owner himself thinks it is more likely that Global Warming will occur than Global Cooling and who backs up his own importance by referring to the Nobel Prize the UN-IPCC got so not really sure he is in your camp. The conservative and rightwing National Review and Daily Caller and Breitbart the well known Tea Party speaker.

I don't think the jury will be out long before the final verdict is given.

Your argument is that the whole thing is "an unproven scientific theory". Even if this is so the problem is that if at the end it however turns out to be correct it will be to late and/or expensive to do anything about it.
The main point of the contra discussion is that it is carried by conservative forces that have an interest in keeping things such as they are. Even if there was no climate change keeping fossil fuel use as it is now will lead to general pollution and the sustenance of despicable regimes such as Saudi Arabia (and Gulf states) Putin and of course these horrible Norwegians who, with their oil money, want to recolonialise Greenland again but first want to have a better climate there.

Gravitational Waves was until some weeks ago as well "an unproven scientific theory". There were all these nutters wasting money on research on it. They probably will get the Nobel Prize now for it.

Funny how you look at things. I am definitely not going to drink a bucket of water with some baijiu in it.

0.04% of a person of let say 70 Kg = 28 grams
That is one 50 cc shot of baijiu or 1 litre of Chinese beer.
"No officer, at the whole scale of things I had nothing to drink."

On 100 mg tablet for the same person = 0.000143% or a 500 mg paracetamol = 0.000714%
0.04% in tablets would be 28 grams again. Well that is a lot of medicines.
Doctor to patient: "Common, take your 56 tablets of paracetamol, at the whole scale of things that is nothing".