>>>>Cold winters do not disprove the global warming theory, Bill.
>>>
>>>What does?
>>>
>>
>>You would be better off listening to scientists about that. I am in no position to disprove it. I just tend to trust impartial researchers, people who were writing reports long before it became a political issue.
>
>It became an issue after it became political. But I really don't like how the issue of general industrial pollution is now pushed aside and replaced with the global climate change (count the frequencies of phrases "global warming" and "global climate change" in the media few years ago and now - "warming" isn't PC anymore), how the corporate responsibility over the abuse of resources and poisoning the population is replaced with harangue against "deniers" (it's actually illegal to deny, just don't know the jurisdiction) and getting rich on "cap and trade" selling and buying of imaginary and arbitrary quotas of emissions... and why does CO2 suddenly top the agenda? Isn't it beneficial to plants? What happened to the ozone holes that were the big scare of the eighties - fixed, gone, given up? Why aren't they mentioned anymore?
>
>And why is the East Anglia University scandal covered up/forgotten so fast?
>
>Scientific consensus doesn't prove anything. Allegedly, there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth is the center of the Universe. Why don't these consentual scientists (of East Anglia and other suppliers of data for the propagandistic war) publish their data so that anyone can recalculate ("anyone" is the prerequisite for peer review, "cherrypicked" is not), but instead resist and stonewall the FOIA and the like requests for years?
>
>Unfortunately, most of today's science is prostituted. Everything is relativized, there's no firm truth, anything can be bought. Research is more often ordered than orderly. If majority of people don't trust them, it's because they have betrayed the trust hundred times before.

Dragan, if you were an actual scientist I would pay more attention to that.