Remove it from this particular issue. This is not unique. The problem is there are many that perpetuate this idiocy that are just plain ignorant and really are not familiar with the steady stream of materialist propaganda that has fallen by the wayside over the past 100 years. The young and ignorant always fall for this garbage.
There are many reasons.
1. There is a political component.
2. There is a psychological need for some to believe in these types of things ( I call it esotericeroticism).
3. There is a an ignorant component as far as it pertains to those (mostly under age 30) that are willing to be "useful idiots".
4.There is a greed component. Global Warming is a billion dollar i...

Remove it from this particular issue. This is not unique. The problem is there are many that perpetuate this idiocy that are just plain ignorant and really are not familiar with the steady stream of materialist propaganda that has fallen by the wayside over the past 100 years. The young and ignorant always fall for this garbage.
There are many reasons.
1. There is a political component.
2. There is a psychological need for some to believe in these types of things ( I call it esotericeroticism).
3. There is a an ignorant component as far as it pertains to those (mostly under age 30) that are willing to be "useful idiots".
4.There is a greed component. Global Warming is a billion dollar industry. It is laughable when the "alarmists" always try to discredit scientists as linked to big oil when the money goes to "alarmists" in a 100 to 1 ratio. Yet there is still no scientific evidence for the alarmist theories. In fact it is to the contrary.

You're trying to tapdance away from the point of the subject.

The concensus view on the topic of global warming is vast, and spans many scientific disciplines including: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (which includes the nation's leading climate modelers), and the Nation Academies of Sciences of: The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Belgium, Indonesia, Ireland, and Sweden. And the list goes on...

And on another ClipMark I covered the non-q...

You're trying to tapdance away from the point of the subject.

The concensus view on the topic of global warming is vast, and spans many scientific disciplines including: The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (which includes the nation's leading climate modelers), and the Nation Academies of Sciences of: The United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Belgium, Indonesia, Ireland, and Sweden. And the list goes on...

And on another ClipMark I covered the non-qualifications of several "scientists" who you said were anti-global warming. Like, just to recap on three of them:

Tim Ball, retired professor at the University of Winnipeg's department of geography, magically turned into "Professor Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg, Department of Climatology." First off, there is no department of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. Secondly, Tim Ball is listed as a paid "consultant" of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the "Friends of Science" (FOS). FOS has admitted, after being caught, that they receive a major portion of their funding directly from the fossil fuel industry.

cont'd:

Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT was exposed by Ross Gelbspan,
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, as being a paid "consultant" for the
fossil fuel industry. This is an unfortunate trend we see among many of
the anti-global-warming scientists. In fact, Mr. Lindzen was paid
$2,500 per day by the oil industry in the mid-1990s while he was a
member of the previous IPCC, and his report "Global Warming: the Origin
and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.

On 9/16/2006 the Washington Post took an in-depth look at outspoken
climate change skeptic Pat Michaels. There was a huge controversy
regarding an electric utility industry association memo poi...

read more»

Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT was exposed by Ross Gelbspan,
Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, as being a paid "consultant" for the
fossil fuel industry. This is an unfortunate trend we see among many of
the anti-global-warming scientists. In fact, Mr. Lindzen was paid
$2,500 per day by the oil industry in the mid-1990s while he was a
member of the previous IPCC, and his report "Global Warming: the Origin
and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus" was underwritten by OPEC.

On 9/16/2006 the Washington Post took an in-depth look at outspoken
climate change skeptic Pat Michaels. There was a huge controversy
regarding an electric utility industry association memo pointing
Michaels out as a scientist willing to sow public doubt for the right
price, which was apparently around $100,000 according to the memo.

Even
a number of CEOs from major corporations, you know, are now joining
together to combat this global crisis, including: Alcoa, BP America,
Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Dupont, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman
Brothers, and Pacific Gas & Electric.

How many times will you have to have the ground shot out from
underneath you on this topic? Despite your will to debunk it, the facts
you come up with are absolute garbage. Are you ever going to stop
looking for something which disappears into thin air the instant you
reach out to touch it?