(V): Not true. Patiently false.

(V): Balony. Any scientist worth his salt can tell you that consensus is not the one and only method whereby science determines something to be true or not. The idea that no scientist would bow to political presure and never jigger results for financial gain is nonsense.

When I was 10 years old I had no trouble believing in the purity of science and anyone who called himself a scientist, but I had a good reason for being naive.. I was 10 years old.

Iamon lyme: his consensus figures are wayyyyyyy off.

Artful Dodger: even if his figures were spot on it wouldn't make a difference. Many climatologists caved under political pressure to go along with this, some for financial gain and others out of fear for their jobs. Where I live the state climatogist came under fire for challenging the global warming position. No word after that whether he was able to keep his prestigious job or not.. odds are he has been quietly replaced or effectively muzzled. I saw the governor in a news cast expressing his displeasure over a scientist (his scientist) not going along with the program.

For whatever reasons (V) has jumped on the politically correct version of global climate science. What I've noticed about various liberal causes over the years is they can change at any time, and even promote the opposite of what they used to promote.

Iamon lyme: of course, don't you remember last year when they said that global cooling proves global warming

Vikings: I remember that! It all points to "proof" for their position.

Vikings: Heck, I can remember when global cooling was supposed to usher in the next ice age.

They could at least wait until all of us old farts have died off before they start in predicting the opposite of what they had been predicting. The excuse is usually something like "Well, we know more now than we did then." I guess that means no one can be wrong about it now.. at least not until the next consensus is taken.

Iamon lyme: Be sure to check out the video I posted (I know some people believe you are me, in which case, you're already seen it...but...) just in case you're not me, Lord Monckton makes a strong case against the hysteria. In another video, he levels a scientist's claims (on live tv no less).

Artful Dodger: I usually don't click on links, as I am afraid of getting a virus which might give me a runny nose that drips onto my keyboard and shorts it out, but on the off chance that I might not be you I should probably take a look at it. If I've already seen it because I posted it then I'll have to re-evaluate the facts surrounding the question of my being a separately existing sentient being..

Iamon lyme:

Iamon lyme: .....well ONE person will ALWAYS be right :)

Bernice: I totally agree. I don't believe I "couldn't be wrong" as I'm not all knowing. There is an argument on the other side in support of man made climate change. The problem is, I am more convinced by the counter arguments against MMGW than those made for the idea.

On TV personality suggested that if "deniers" are wrong, we're all going to suffer environmentally. But if the "warmists" are wrong, the worst is we'd have a cleaner earth.

But he's oh so wrong. The law of unintended consequences is hugely at play here. Food prices are up, but for many, we can afford the jump. But in some cultures, it means little food and starvation. Millions would die of the "Alarmists" had their way. So much is at stake. Truth matters.

Also, those ringing the bell the loudest (FOR global warming) stand to make tons of money from it. Hardly a credible source from which to form an opinion. Most scientists in favor of warming would lose funds if warming was debunked totally. So they are motivated by the $$ and NOT the science.

Bernice: Like with WMD's.... but they were wrong about that. Al Qaeda was in league with Saddam... but they were wrong about that.

That everyone who was not a Christian (and only the born again type) was bound for hell... Someone here was so sure about that.

Even Glenn Beck was bound to hell by the views of this person and his worships a false prophet..

... but now they worship Glenn Beck.

How times change LMAO

Iamon lyme: since every one is catching on to their hypocrisy, they are now referring to it as man made global CHANGE.

97% of those polled believe that it will cool in the northern hemisphere over the next few months while oddly enough, 97% of those polled believe the southern hemisphere will warm over the next few months

Vikings: That's right, I had forgotten that. They are already in the process of distancing themselves from their own global warming prediction. Sometime down the road, after making other changes to the rhetoric, they can then claim that global warming was never an issue.

I know how stupid that sounds, because who would believe that global warming proponents never warned us about global warming? A few years ago I was involved in a debate over another subject, where someone claimed opposition to the big bang theory had nothing to do with religion. I was alive at the time when some scientists opposed the big bang theory because of how it resembled the genesis account of creation. If you compared both the steady state universe and big bang theories to the genesis account, it's a no brainer which one comes closest to resembling the biblical acccount. But here it is only a few years ago someone is telling me that never happened. It makes me wonder, how many other things never happened that I've personally witnessed?

Iamon lyme: Yep.. a few papers took hold of a few papers and said it proved that cooling was starting... despite that few papers being 7 and 44 saying global warming was a good probability.

Blame the press!! lol

Iamon lyme: There are two issues that the liberals love to cling to. Oddly enough, the two issues have something in common, even though they are very strange bedfellows indeed.

One is climate change and the other is racism.

Al Gore suggested that denying anthropogenic climate change is settled science is like denying that blacks are equal to whites. Somehow Gore sees both denials as a moral equivalent.

Another interesting parallel for liberals is the logic they use on both climate change discussions and racism charges.

On climate change: If it's getting hotter, that's due to climate change (caused by man).
If it's getting colder, that's also caused by man.
If it stays the same, yeah, you guessed it. Never mind that those are the only three climate choices.

On racism: IF you're a conservative and if you don't have any black friends, it's because you're a racist. If you do have a black friend, it's because you are a racist and only using that black person as an excuse to hide your racism.

If you oppose Obama, it's because you're a racist.
If you like Cain, it's because you're a racist trying to hide your racism.

No matter the facts presented to liberals regarding climate change or racism, they spin it against you ONLY if you are a conservative.

If you're a liberal, there's a 97% chance you can't think for yourself. The other 3% are moderates.