As soon as something turns into a religion, there will be people who go against the dogma just to be important. We call these people hipsters. Global warming is one of our holy religions right now in the West, and unsurprisingly, this religion has got its fair share of preachers and dissidents. Meet Jym Ganahl, a self-proclaimed dissident:

“Just wait 5 or 10 years, and it will be very obvious. They’ll have egg on their faces,” Ganahl said this week of global warming advocates.

“When there are sunspots, like freckles on the sun—dark spots—these are like turning on a furnace and the earth warms. When there are no sunspots, it is like the furnace is in standby and the earth cools.

“I have always thought we should celebrate and be thankful we live in a time when it is warmer, not curse it,” Ganahl said. “It allows us to grow food and feed the population—and the warming is slow and we can adapt to it.”

Ending in humanism, how beautiful. Let's get back to reality, shall we?

Solar activity does not account for global warming today

Solar variations do affect climate, but they are not the only factor. As there has been no positive trend in any solar index since the 1960s (and possibly a small negative trend), solar forcing cannot be responsible for the recent temperature trends. The difference between the solar minimum and solar maximum over the 11-year solar cycle is 10 times smaller than the effect of greenhouse gases over the same interval.

Direct satellite measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures, according to new research.

The findings debunk an explanation for climate change that is often cited by people who are not convinced that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are causing the Earth's climate to warm.

No, we cannot feed the entire planet just because it's getting hotter

Resource use would plummet in developed countries while rising in many of the poorest. (Surely we could not deprive the latter of the chance to raise their standards of living?) But it wouldn't get us to 1.8gha. At 2.6gha, Mexico's footprint is 32% too high. A drop to the level of Botswana or Uzbekistan would put us in the right range.

But that's not low enough. We'd next have to compensate for UN projections of 40% more humans by the middle of the century. That would mean shrinking the global footprint to under 1.3gha, roughly the level of Guatemala or Nigeria.

There's more. The GFN authors point out their data is conservative, underestimating problems such as aquifer depletion and our impacts on other species. In response, the Redefining Progress group publishes an alternative footprint measure which has humanity not at 25%, but at 39% overshoot. But that too, the authors concede, is an underestimate.

Corrupt Data: Debunking Common Myths About Overpopulation

Most climate skeptics are idiots trying to cash in on going against public opinion. Most of them promote an industrialized third world, continued population growth, and some stylishly "unique" form of Western capitalism. In short, they're Progressives without a clue. I suggest we export them all to Africa, where it's both hot and overpopulated. If you really want that future, you gotta live it, baby!