Bah, you believe people are bigger than nature? Pollute it all and every animal will die, but the planet will go on for ever or until the sun burns out. So keep believing in fairy tales, and when they prove global warming to be mere fluctuations, come out and say you were wrong, and that you're sorry that you thought you were bigger than nature.

global warming is real, by geologic time standards the amount which our pollution has caused the weather to shift is instantaneous, chunks of the south pole r breaking off every year
BUT global warming is an issue which many people simply cannot admit is real no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them because to admit its real is to admit that they and their society have done wrong and future generations will pay for it
Nobody wants to admit their wrong especially if they r not goin 2 see the proof within their lifetime

But the weather channel suing al gore? thats ridiculous, it doesnt even make any sense like gm burying the electric car did in a twisted way, by my logic the weather channel would be praising al gore for exposing the fact that there will be more natural disasters for them to film and report on

global warming is real, by geologic time standards the amount which our pollution has caused the weather to shift is instantaneous, chunks of the south pole r breaking off every year
BUT global warming is an issue which many people simply cannot admit is real no matter how much evidence is placed in front of them because to admit its real is to admit that they and their society have done wrong and future generations will pay for it
Nobody wants to admit their wrong especially if they r not goin 2 see the proof within their lifetime

But the weather channel suing al gore? thats ridiculous, it doesnt even make any sense like gm burying the electric car did in a twisted way, by my logic the weather channel would be praising al gore for exposing the fact that there will be more natural disasters for them to film and report on

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Why is it that everyone "conveniently" forgets that 35 years ago the alarmists were screaming that we were headed for another ice age because of global cooling?

Agreed Science is not about consensus; hypotheses are however tested by all scientists, esp. in this competitive publication driven scientific community. And when there is a consensus, it is really worth noting.

The point here is, how come you , as a non scientist(at least a non climatologist) have a way of knowing that the one dissenting voice in the scientific community is that of a genius who sees what no one else has. It is prejudice that drives reason here.

By the way there never has been consensus about anything in science. There are a few scientists who dispute the theory of relativity(the observations on jupiter's moons eclipses were flawed in their view). Science is about dissent, but when you have overwhelming evidence in a direction, it suits one well if it is heeded and acted upon. As even Senator McCain has argued. There is a need, a dire one, to forego dogma and act upon the facts that are put forth by the best and the brightest.

And for the record, I don't believe there ever has been such an overwhelmng consensus on a publicly disputed issue, since the times of Galileo. Mixing faith and politics with science has never been savoury, or smart.

In other words, IF 99.9% of scientists believe in MMGW, they can still be wrong. Science is based on SCIENCE, not opinion.

If .1% is enough to sway ur opinion then by ur logic i suppose we have no proof of gravity and maybe diseases really r little elves punishing us for our wickedness and toothaches r caused by gluttony and storks cause pregnancy ( laughing at u not with u)

but that 99.9% has equally compelling evidence