Global Warming, Pollution, and Politics

That's a pretty cheap shot, Nero. Do you have anything - anything - to back up this imbecilic smear of climate scientists? There's no shortage of people ranting about global warming being a scientific hoax but, despite the magnitude of that sort of a conspiracy, not one of these clowns has ventured a shred of proof - because there isn't any. That's comic book-grade fantasy, really puerile stuff.

So why aren't the people who claim that all the scientists agree with their evidenceless theory the "conspiracy theorists", but the ones who say that this isn't the case?

What do you think a "climate scientist" is employed for? Do you think that zoo directors are the most unpartizan opinion holders on the subject of zoo financing too?

You are making a fatal error in our argument. The deniers of global warming are turning what should be a scientific and empirical argument into a political argument. Sure, not all scientists follow the unwritten code of scientific discovery ethics, but most of the prominent ones do. Thus, it takes a climate scientist to understand the mechanisms of global warming and greenhouse effect. People that do not have a strong grasp on the understandings of climate do not really have much authority on the subject, but many people are wiling to pay for their words.

First of all, aligning those who reject a theory about climate with holocaust deniers is just repulsing.
And blaming the skeptics of global warming with politicizing it is simply wrong. Global warming is politics with a pseudo-scientific justification. Which side uses consensus as it's main argument? Consensus is not science. In fact this combination of fallacies it is inherently unscientific.
Alarmists are entirely political. Because the citizen can not judge the science himself. He does not have access to measuring station data. Thus we can only trust experts. Consensus is just an invitation to blindly trust whatever the experts say.
Painting someone as a big-oil financed holocaust denier who doesn't understand science is politics, not science. That should be obvious. In fact all the reasons for believing in global warming are political.
1. Being on the good side, not that of "big oil".
2. Not being name-called a denier, etc.
3. Not being one of those stupid people who "don't understand science".
Whenever one side insults the other side with terms like "not understanding science" or "denier", I tend to go the other way. All those are Soviet style propaganda techniques. And whenever I find the 'insult the other side' Soviet propaganda technique, I look for the 'blame on the other side what you want to do' Soviet propaganda technique. It's become a pretty reliable indicator of the motives of the left. Because they always shout their secret plans at the other side.

Bring me a shrubbery

Europe finds energy source in South Texas mesquite