>>You have presented no factual information worth considering in the formation of my opinion. I've asked you to back up your statements with facts and you've offered unsupported anecdotes, unreliable wikis and personal belief. Given your own words "I'm going to believe the majority of the really smart scientists", it's clear that you're willing to put your faith in those you regard as more clever than yourself. I am not. I will question and research and come to my own conclusions because history has proven to me that frauds come in all shapes and sizes and the bigger the prize the more willing the corrupt are to attempt to steal it. The prize for AGW is global power and trillion$. The cost is liberty, right down to the air we exhale.
>
>The wikipedia articles site many, many Factual scientific references. If you choose not to read them, that's your own choice,

I have read them. Wiki's are not proof, they are unreliable and as I have already pointed out that at least 16 authors of the GW related wikis were banned because of biased writing and hijacking the pages. That's a fact.

>but to say I haven't provided any factual information is false.

You have presented no factual information worth considering in the formation of my opinion

See the difference?

You provided quotes from a wiki. I've already read through the wikis. There's nothing new for me to consider there.

>Worse than that, your statement is intentionally false and misleading. So you've personally conducted research? I don't think so. You've read articles that reinforce your beliefs same as everyone else (me included).

I do not filter my research according to belief as doing so would limit my knowledge.

>That we choose to believe two different things is based on our biases.

My biases and opinions are based on my knowledge, which is subject to change by evidence, regardless of source.

>You are no better than I or anyone else despite your grandstanding to the opposite.

"better" is a relative term and has nothing to do with the discussion. I believe I'm more informed based upon my years of following the debate and the relevant events. My conclusions are based on the evidence, not the least of which is the last 2 years worth of "really smart scientists" finally willing to come forward to expose the pressure which has been applied monetarily and professionally to go along with the "consensus". Many "really smart scientists" who were believers in AGW have understood that they've been had and are pushing for a cleaning up of their scientific community.

>The majority rules in science because the majority have come to the same scientific conclusions, NOT because of a popularity contest.

There is no majority rule in science. Facts rule.
Perhaps you'll appreciate this from the wiki on the subject. ;)
Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus