> Not very many years ago -- two? three? -- there was near unanimity among scientists that global warming was real and not just a statistical tic, at least among those scientists not employed by the petrochemical industry
>
>Mike, this is incorrect. The notion of "global warming" has always been hotly (no pun intended) debated amongst scientsts outside the realm of those funded by the state (and even within the state) There has never been a near-unanimous view.
>
>You may want to look at the Global Warming Petition project (http://www.petitionproject.org/) , as well as research studies done at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.oism.org/s32p1853.htm)
>
>Global warming is pseudo-science, period - it has as many pre-conceived agendas as the anti-nuclear energy agendas in the late 1970's and early 1980's, which were just as fraudulent (and wound up setting this country back, energy-wise).
>
>There's a paper trail of warming advocates who have avoided direct debate with warming opponents.
>

I have let your continuing obnoxious comments -- Tim Lincecum, even my daughter -- go by. This one I will not let go by. You are so wrong it is almost comical. I stand by my statement that there was and is near unanimity among serious scientists. There was and is. The blowback from the industry has attracted the likes of you, I'm-against-everything types looking for a place to launch their free floating anger. Uninformed blowhards, to put it in a phrase. Sorry, but I'm on the side of the scientists.
.