I kept thinking the same thing while I was writing the post!

Still avoiding the debate, eh?

By the way, let us know when you post any of this “information” which actually succeeds in “debunking” anything. Any fool can see what you actually post consists of nothing more than innuendo and smear campaigns. So, if I were you, I’d leave off on the backslapping and high-fives for now.

Spoken like a true cultist Stephen. Since you have the keys to all truth, knowledge and virtue, anyone who disagrees with you is clearly ignorant and probably subversive as well. It is that infantilism that makes your loyalty to the “cause” most noxious. Rev. Jim Jones and Jim Bakker were masters of the same technique, with great success but, where are they now?

There you go again Mr Berg, if you have no argument call them names. I don’t believe you have a real grasp of how the science works Mr Berg. I’ve never stated that the scientists that compiled any of the IPCC reports were not credible researchers. There are two questions at hand to science, the 1st is ‘Has the climate been changing” and second is ‘if it has been changing, why?” There is very good evidence that over the last 25 to 30 years it’s been getting ”hotter”, there is a good body of evidence that since about 1850 it’s been getting hotter. Beyond that it begins to get really fuzzy. And I have pointed out to you previously our on National Academy of Sciences takes this position. I would say a consensus of climate scientists takes this position, that in the last 150 years it’s gotten ‘hotter’. Now the next question is why. Climate scientists are close to evenly split here. In fact many of the contributing climate scientists that worked on the IPCC report are in that group that do not think ‘man’ is to blame for the current climate change. In case you don’t understand how the IPCC process works, here’s how it works. A UN committee of politicians picks which scientists can contribute. The IPCC contributors HAVE to be a member of the WMO, which is a UN funded group of climatologists. Nothing wrong with that except, it seems that the jury is rigged to begin with, if your going to limit who can participate. Anyway, a group of these WMO members are chosen to write their scientific theory and research the subject at hand. They issue a report. The most resent report was issued in late January. But here’s where the politicians come in, the report issued by the climate scientists is secrete. It is reviewed and edited by that same group of politicians that picked the contributors in the 1st place. So what you have read is not the report prepared by the climate scientists, but a fully edited report by politicians. Here’s the system from the IPCC website of how the system works. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq/IPCC%20Procedures.pdf Now I noticed in your post that you did not dispute the actual number of contributors to the report so I gather you have now learned the truth. There is no doubt that the contributing scientist’s to the IPCC reports are anything but honest and credible but what I don’t think you understand that in science very few things are absolute. There are is indeed a very large body of evidence that man might/may be to blame is some part for the current climate changes, But even among the 50% or so of the climate experts that believe this, there is general disagreement as to whether the cause is CO2, methane, or even carbon soot and to what degree. There is some excellent science being done on this subject and we as the general public should keep the rhetoric down and keep the politicians out of it till more is understood.