Sorry but the UN IPCC is headed by a railroad engineer. I know several scientists who have resigned because the SPM summary for policy makers is not written by scientists and often disagrees with the made body written by scientists. They the UN IPCC was humiliated when Lord Monckton caught

a rather huge exaggeration in one of their tables which they had to correct. Finally, the UN IPCC once ebraced the Mann Hockey stick graph and now they run away from it. Each year they scream louder but if one looks into the main body of their report the predictions become less catostrophic.

There is not a scientific consensus, even if there were it wouldn't mean anything. There was once a consensus that the earth was flat and that the Sun

rotated around the earth. It's a moot point because alarmists don't have a consensus.

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html If you knew anyting about science you would know the science is very rarely settled on anything.

THere is no evidence for AGW. Computer models that have been progammed to spit out hockey sticks no matter what and imcomplete surface data stations are not "plenty of solid" evidence. Not even evidence at all. Time for you to take another Al Gore Kool-Aid break I suspect. Even if you're not ready, get lost. You don't deserve to be in the same conversation with me.

Here are tens of thousands of scientists who have said it's not real:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

Here are tens of thousands of scientists who have said it's not real:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com/GlobalWarming.html

Amen! The lie test for most politicians is whether or not their mouth is moving.

What would you call the people who created masks of Bush looking like Hitler. The same CNN reporter who got ticked at the sign with Obama as hitler seem to get a kick out seeing Bush as Hitler.

The vid is in the upper right section of this page:

http://www.hootervillegazette.com

Did his inspiring speech mention that an expensive bust of Abraham Lincoln showed up at his house after he left office. I'm sorry you don't throw that in a moving box with a stapler and a box of pens.

I don't magically accept anyone's word about anything. Those accredited institutions you speak of have gobbled up 30 Billion dollars worth of US research money over the last few decades. It's pretty much there for the taking unless a study comes out not in favor of anthropogenic global warming. By the Cerin, here is a list of tens of thousands of scientists who don't agree with global warming. You seem to be suggesting that a few government grant fed groups who don't want to give up their research money are worth listening to. Oh by the way, the crown jewel in the crown of accredited scientific institutions is supposedly the UN IPCC. The United Nations InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This highly touted group is headed by none other than a railroad engineer. I've read a pile of books and at least 100 papers on global warming which I'm sure in one pile of books and a hundred papers more than you've read. Oh I watched Al Gore's little Sci-FI Comedy Horror Flick too. Try donig some objective reading or perhaps it was you who took the word of a stranger on a website?

Gore invests in a number of companies that will make billions of cap and trade go through and then he's brought in to testify on this subject.

DO YOU REALLY SEE NO CONFLICT HERE??? If you don't see a conflict of interest, we should really stop talking because we're too far apart to agree on anything.

Well then your understanding is incomplete and you should go back an listen to the tape. She was asking how he would be benefited if cap and trade was passed. She didn't ask him a single thing about the past. Not one. She also asked him if he would be willing to divest himself and he didn't answer that either. Future crimes????? Her point was, and do feel bad it escaped a lot of liberals, was that if he stood to gain a fortune he wasn't an unbiased witness. You do understand that Gore was in fact testifying, testifying does take place outside of criminal courtrooms...Geeeeeze do I have to explain everything here.

DO you want to rethink that Kuk. It's a little tough to prove something doesn't exist. My anwser is that every time someone has presented something it's had serious holes in it. If I claimed the tooth fairy existed, it would be up to me to provide the evidence not up to you to disprove the tooth fair existed.