>It was not his tone I objected to -- a nice rarity -- it was the message. When someone asserts with all seriousness that global warming is fictitious it gets my back up. I don't need to prove the case. Among scientists this is a settled matter and has been for some time. What we are experiencing at the moment, repeating myself, is pushback from those with a lot to lose. With plenty of willing dupes
>
>I never said that global warming was ficticious. I used the term pseudo-science. I do not dispute that there might be warming due to periodic changes in the planetary system (which many scientists DO agree on) - what I AM saying is that a large body of scientists reject the "man-made global warming" theories that try to advance theories regarding CO2, methane, greenhouse gases, etc.
>
>You say that there is near unanimity on acceptance of global warming, without a bloody shred of evidence - and then you go on to say "I don't need to prove the case". That one speaks for itself.
>
>And you continue and continue with this "among scientists this is a settled matter" assertion - I've given you substantial evidence to the contrary (and if I really felt like it, could give you even more, but it wouldn't do any good).
>
>You said, "what we are experiencing is pushback"...well, I personally see an awful lot of backtracking by the GWT (global warming theory) advocates.

Kevin, this is not a new story. It has been in the news for many years now that most scientists agree global warming is real. It is no longer a theory. There is legitimate debate about the extent of damage we are doing to the atmosphere, but not many scientists (acting as scientists and not paid shills) think it doesn't exist. Asking me to make a case for it all over again is absurd.

You have done exactly what I said I would not let you do, which is draw me into debate with increasingly provocative statements. That was a good idea, so I will shut up now. You little deniers can throw mud at scientific findings all you like without my help.