>>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.

You read all 168 references? I seriously doubt that.

And the 91 references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

You read all those too?

>>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.

Red herring yet again. That's a fact. Pointing out past issues with the wikipedia page is irrelevant.

>>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

The wiki includes references to actual science. You keep choosing to pretend those references don't exist.

>See the difference?

Do you?


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

Fair enough. Mine do too.

>>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.

And yet the majority of scientists say it's real. Here I'll pull your tactic: You haven't provided me any factual evidence that GW is fake. Just a warning though, any references that you may provide in the future I will then discard as being unacceptable references because they are not based on real science (I learn from the best!).

>>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.

And the facts point to the fact that human impact has led to measurable global warming.

>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

When scientists thought the world was flat, majority certainly was not right. GW is not based on hunches. The GW scientists are the ones saying the world is round. It's inconceivable to think that the ridiculous amounts of pollution and gases we emit aren't haven't a serious impact on the earth. If the majority of smart scientists say that affect is warming, that's good enough for me.

Neither of us has conducted science. Both of us are just regurgitating what we choose to believe. Your belief is in the minority which makes you more defensive of your opinion.