Why would Canadians think otherwise when the MSM and the Gov't's lie and decieve them

[mustardman]

So all you coffee shop boys who live on the prairies... you must also think the world is FLAT right? lol (oh ya we've got a whole bunch of peer reviewed scientists on this site) LOL

[liberty]

Questioning global warming is not equivalent to believing in a flat earth. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for questioning the accuracy of the data used to arrive at the conclusion that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact.

You also need to be careful about bragging about a "consensus" on global warming. Consensus is not synonymous with truth. There are plenty of times when a consensus turned out to be completely wrong. As one example, I'll remind you of the "consensus" that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and that their use was imminent. That turned out not to be the case at all.

[liberty]

If you want some insight into the thought processes of some of the "bright lights" at the helm of climate science these days, here's a quote from AGW advocate Gavin Schmidt on his website realclimate.org in which he responds to a comment from someone who is critical of the notion that CO2 causes global warming:

"[Response: Sorry, but your example was a flawed thought experiment. Try coding this up with the following equations: c dT/dt = F_ext 5.3*log(CO2/CO2_orig), dCO2/dt = a*(T-To) with suitable values for a,c, To etc. Then play around with the external forcing F_ext - sinusoidal maybe, and see what happens. If you get it right you'll see T following F_ext with some lag (depending on a and c) and CO2 following along in both the ups and the downs. c is the heat capacity of the system, pick 'a' so that you get the observed glacial-interglacial difference for the peak to trough difference in F_ext. With large 'a' you'll see a runaway affect, but for realistic values you won't. - gavin]"

A statement like this pretty much sums up the usefulness of mainstream climate science these days. All that's needed to "prove" global warming is to "play around" with baffling mathematical formulas and see if we "get it right". Presumably, if we don't get it right, we'll play around with even more numbers and "see what happens" until we bloody well get the result we're looking for. Data manipulation, not real-world observation, is the goal of mainstream climate science these days.

Is it any wonder that the more the average citizen hears from these self-obsessed twits the less he buys into what they're selling?

[mustardman]

Liberty you've got to joking on the analogy of Saddam Hussein.
There was NO Consesus from anyone that he had WMD. Except for maybe Fox news(those idiots)
That was a big scam by Cheney and Bush -Cheney mostly to get more contracts for his little Halliburton and to get control of Iraq oil .

The American people have got to remember a Mark Twain quote:

Patriotism means standing behind your Country but Not necessarily Your Government.
If They had a decent public broadcating service down there that perform Basic journalism skills like Ask Questions, they would not be in Iraq.

[burnt]

Gee, mustardman, when we ask questions about AGW, we are called "flat earthers" and, at worst, Neanderthals. Perhaps you would also, in your infinite wisdom, tell us what questions we should be asking so we don't foolishly ask the wrong ones?