Look who's talking. Ya'll do your research at the Hoover Institute and the Petroleum Institute of America and you wonder why people laugh at you? You silly.
There is a consensus that human activity has impacted our climate. There is a very broad scientific consensus on the factual basis by a very large, diverse and international body of legitimate professional scientist. You're idiots if you think that scientist aren't aware of where the state of knowledge is on this topic, you're idiots if you don't think conflicting abservation and data isn't considered and
what's worse is your forming your opinions based an unscientific political and ideological resources while accusing the scientific commonity of stiffling dissent.
The problem with that is when you look at the vast body of research on the subject, which granted I'm certainly no expert in,
but when you do look at the vast amounts of data and peer reviewed literature supporting ACC, then you deniers come of as out on the fringe fanatics. So spare me the psychological projection. I'm capable of drawing my own conclusions and those are that a great deal more research on ACC needs to be done to establish a causal mechanism(s) before any significant public policy can be implemented, if we expect those policies to be affective.
You're rejection of sound science and the consensus as fanaticism while referencing cranks, pop science and a handfull of dissenting opinions as some sort of consipiracy theory is laughable.
As a friend and fellow scientist once said on here.
"Who's opinions have more credibility? Professional climatoligist who do this for a living or a handfull of cranks and mining engineers who get their data from the Petroleum Institute of America."
Yea...there's some fanaticism and religious worship going on here but your'e the one practicing them.
