The old, very old and tired Al Gore bob and weave. Instead of Godwin we have Gorewin. Al Gore did not 'invent the internet' and he never said he did, and he's also been right on climate science.

You're pushing a false equivalence. The 'skeptics' are not skeptics: they are ideologues doing their best to create an impression that there is some debate where there is none.

Find an actual scientific body that is actually skeptical of human caused climate change.

Climate Science International is not a climate science 'journal' or research group. It's an agenda driven group of scientists. Timothy Ball is a well known denier who has received energy industry funding.

There's a difference. Can you tell the difference, or do you choose not to? 

He never said what you're claiming he said.

If you look up the FACTS regarding what he REALLY said, and if you look up our Government's role in creating what we now know as the Internet, you will find that what he said was indeed true. With today's wonderful audio and video recording technology and with online search engines, it's very easy to get accurate, documented, true information that you can confirm for yourself and even learn something in the process!

Or you could just keep repeating silly comments that you hear on AM talk radio that get your friends to laugh and "high-five' you.

You are misunderstanding what I have said

I never said anything about scientists not beleiving in human involvement in climate change, what i said (I hope this is easier to understand) is that groups of scientists all have their own theory's about the subject and they do not necessarily agree all the time. The fact is they don't all agree on the how and why and when. Its not a question of humans affecting climate that is the debate its the severity, its the how long before its to late, its the what do we do about it that so many scientists cant agree on.

Stop trying to start a fight over nit pick details, if you dont think scinetists argue all the time go to a scinetific conference some time and hang out at the party afterwards.

Then why are you making this distinction that there is 'debate' in climate science? It's a point that is, practically speaking, irrelevant, unless there is considerable debate or focus on some key specific issues. Or, if there are two groups of scientists with differing theories with supporting evidence.

But there are not.

But hey, they disagree on stuff. Well, yeah. We all disagree on stuff. We disagree on wire ties vs velco, telling a GC to pound sand or eat their BS after they insulate on us, or iPads as touchpanels. Climate scientists disagree on what exactly? That either we're merely going to have some major populations dramatically affected with only a few degrees of Celsius increase, or back to the Stone Age? They may disagree on 50 billion tons of C02 a year being a 'safe' level vs 20 billions tons a year being safe. Sure.

I'm not trying to pick a fight over a minor detail, I'm following what you are saying and we are attempting to have a discussion. You pointed out that the earth has been through many changes caused by all kinds of things, and scientists disagree on a bunch of stuff, in response to comments about weather and climate (which are not the same thing). You also said:

Pick your science, there are a lot of options that science  and extremists are trying to twist around their own axles.

I'm assuming you're talking about climate science specifically. This statement creates an equivalence between 'scientists' and 'extremists'  that are 'trying to twist around their own axles' which I think means drive an agenda.

I'm pointing out that the earth has gone through dramatic changes before, and will again, and this time we're the driving force. And that in the climate science community, there is very little debate that the earth is warming, we are causing it, and things will change dramatically very fast. The majority of what debate there is revolves around how bad it will be for us and how effective differing solutions will be.

So my question is what scientists are driving agendas? I know of some pseudo scientists (like Tim Ball from Climate Science International). Tim Ball is a not a scientist. He is not a studying climate scientist conducting actual climate science being subjected to peer review. He's clearly driving an agenda (questioning AGW), although it's not clear what evidence he uses to support his agenda, other than talking a lot and being in scientificky sounding groups.

But where are the actual climate scientists who conduct peer reviewed climate research that are 'driving an agenda,' to the equivalence of Tim Ball? 

That is a fair question, not a minor point used to create a spat over.

I thought Tom might be interested in this:

There was talk of a potential run in the 2000 presidential race by Gore as early as January 1998.^[51] Gore discussed the possibility of running during a March 9, 1999 interview with CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. In response to Wolf Blitzer's question: "Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley?", Gore responded:

I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be. But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.^[52]

Former UCLA professor of information studies, Philip E. Agre and journalist Eric Boehlert argued that three articles in Wired News led to the creation of the widely spread urban legend that Gore claimed to have "invented the Internet," which followed this interview.^[53][54][55]Jim Wilkinson, who at the time was working as congressman Dick Armey's spokesman, also helped sell the idea that Gore claimed to have "invented the internet."^[56][57][58] Computer professionals and congressional colleagues argued against this characterization. Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn stated that "we don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he 'invented' the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet."^[54][59] Cerf would also later state: "Al Gore had seen what happened with the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956, which his father introduced as a military bill. It was very powerful. Housing went up, suburban boom happened, everybody became mobile. Al was attuned to the power of networking much more than any of his elective colleagues. His initiatives led directly to the commercialization of the Internet. So he really does deserve credit."^[60]

Whether or not "climate change" is caused by human actions or the result of natural earth cycles and whether or not "climate change" is truly an "emergency" we can or should do anything about, the entire notion has been 100% politicized and serves as the primary basis for ongoing efforts to abolish national sovereignty, convene a Global Government, and install legally binding mechanisms to force unprecedented wealth transfer from [primarily western] highly developed societies to lesser developed peoples with politicians skimming trillions off the top at every step along the way.

If you think I'm whistlin' Dixie, just read up on the results of this weekend's Durban conference. And peruse the UN's "Agenda 21" sometime...

And if you sincerely believe that "Climate Scientists" who work in exchange for grant money apportioned by politicians and globalist diplomats deliver their findings in a completely impartial and unaffected way, you need to get your head checked by a scientist [more specifically, a "Physician"].

In itself, the statement "climate scientists have reached concensus..." confirms that science is not the primary basis of anything these scientists have to say.

Climate change is the "um maybe" but environmental impact is the "holy shit".

Climate change is scary but polluted air and water should be the primary concern. Anyone who thinks humanity isn't quickly destroying the planet needs to contact a family planning clinic. Ask for something that will keep you from breeding. Hopefully this eliminates the next generation/s of knucklheads who think you count on mother nature to clean up the mess while continuing to kill mother nature.

hilarious!

I recently replaced all the detectors in my home due to mutliple false alarms over the span of a year or so...All at 2-3am for some reason...I tried dusting them, checked for insects, etc. but they continued to go off with increasing regularity. So...I purchased a contractor pack of 10 new detectors for about $70 bucks and swapped 'em out.

Then we called our city about proper disposal. The city informed us that they did not/would not process the detectors and referred us to the county hazardous waste landfill...The hazardous waste landfill doesn't accept radioactive material, nor does the C&D landfill!

The county, in turn, referred us to a private waste processing company...At last! For *just* a $165 processing fee, we could drop off up to a 5 gallon bucket full!

Yes sir...This new-fangled environmentalism is fantastic!

Not to derail, but.....

If man evolved from apes.............Why do we still have apes?

Carry on, sorry

And make sure your smoke detectors work properly and do not cause global warming disposing of the old units.

Rerailed

FYI...They make fantastic skeet pigeons...


;p

Only a fool would not know this is the truth.

Yes, we need to be keene on the environment, politicians are not the answer.

The politicization of the subject is due to the PR campaign supported by the fuel industry. That's something you should read up about if you're concerned about conspiracies.

What's ironic is it is now a rhetorical talking point used to challenge climate change science by people who have some conspiracy fetish about one world governments and blue helmets yet never question the PR campaign funded by big business exploiting this paranoia.

It's hypocrisy. The subject is politcized by people who can't accept reality, then those same people complain that the subject is politicized.

In fact your talking points (scientists doing it for the $, climate change false because they all agree) are known false pretenses put forth by pundits who are either funded by fossil fuel industry or motivated by one world government paranoia. They are non-thinking canards not based in evidence or reason but put forth and regurgitated in the echo chamber. I don't think it's worth my time to type out a response to them because you're incapable of reason, but I will ask you this:

If you are paranoid about one world government or the UN, how do you feel about giant corporations creating PR campaigns denying science that will impact the planet?