>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/29/science_and_maths_knowledge_makes_you_sceptical/

Sceptical? Rather, more able to call them on their bullshit. They have been caught red-handed several times, fudging data to fit their theory, and now they're openly admitting that they intend to push for more propaganda to justify carbon tax - the biggest sale of hot air since papal indulgences.

"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Scientific is "suspect until proven". Consensus is a vote, which was probably bought. I've read dozens of accounts of funding being revoked, tenures cut short, articles going unpublished in any scientific magazine, as soon as the scientist in case went against the "citizens cause global warming" mantra. The pro-warming propaganda is getting equally strong as the anti-smoking one. They're counting cow farts, impact of different kind of tyres on mpg, carbon footprint of a human baby, while razing the Amazon jungles to make more GMO soybeans.

At the same time, all other kinds of pollution are moved on the backburner - GMO, chemtrails, the dirtiest diesel that the big tankers churn, depleted uranium ammo, mercury in the CFL bulbs, mercury in the vaccines (which was supposedly OK by them - but then they banned mercury thermometers, which caused about one accident a year, and replaced them with dangerously imprecise Chinese digital junk), artificial fats in margarine and oils, corn fructose in 90% of the food, nanoparticles of aluminium and other metals in food and cosmetics... the list goes on and on. That's not just underreported, that's actively hidden.

Where did they ever get that idea that reflected sunshine is affecting the temperatures more than the incoming sunshine? And how exactly does this produce the idea that there should be a carbon tax on everything?