>>>> 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.
>>>.
>>
>>Come on MIke, open up just a bit and look at everything. This is a money/political issue nothing more. You say serious scientists agree. Why sure they do, how else can the fleece the blindly accepting sheep of their research dollars so they can stay in their cozy labs and have field trips to beautiful places to study Polar bear dicks.
>>Most serious NOAA scientists who have no stake in the funding game, all are anti-global warming.
>
>Bogus. Name three.

Why? You refuse to provide any support for your statements and just stated to me that you don't have to. Why should you expect or even ask him to? :o)

Serously though, the issue is not whether or not global warming exists since there are reputable scientists that disagree. The issue is what good, or bad effect, will changing our behavior have on the environment and the climate. Many scientists either disagree with global warming or with whether it is primarily man-made or caused by emissions or green-house gases or simply a cycle of the earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

I'm a firm believer that whether global warming exists or is man-made or not, we should do all we can to protect and maintain our environment.

Your statement that is an accepted fact by all reputable scientists is inaccurate and that has already been provided to you (and again by me in the link above).

If nothing else convinces you, perhaps this Senate Minority Report will:
U. S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims Scientists Continue to Debunk “Consensus” in 2008 & 2009
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

It had to be continuously updated to include the increasing number of scientists who added their names.

That's not saying there is no globabl warming but it does state very clearly that many scientists (700) disagree about it or the cause of it.