Do the AGW alarmist look at ALL the science?
%26quot;Scientists are accepting large sums of money from drug companies to put their names to articles endorsing new medicines that they have not written--a growing practice that some fear is putting scientific integrity in jeopardy.%26quot;

Uh, yeah. Just like the media looks at ALL the news. %26quot;skeptic%26quot; of unproven theories

Canadian head-alarmist Dr. David Suzuki came out last week in a speech saying that politicians who don%26#039;t agree with his %26#039;junk science%26#039; should be jailed. This speech was made to a packed house of university idiots in Montreal, and they all stood and cheered. And he is not even a climatologist!
Those who are use tactics like this to shape and control the minds of people are scary. They preach global warming and practice mind control. They%26#039;re the ones who should be jailed. They have made up their own brand of science to control people%26#039;s minds, using the same tactics the Nazi%26#039;s in Germany did in the 1930%26#039;s. Make up a fictitious problem, convince the masses, jail the opponents and burn their books.
They%26#039;re not concerned with any scientific facts, couldn%26#039;t care less. Their goal has nothing to do with science, rather it%26#039;s a dangerous brand of politics built on lies and deceit. Thankfully, a growing mass of people around the world are starting to see this and are starting to reject their %26#039;global warming%26#039; ideas.

When one prediction comes true just one I may consider the so called truth of man made global warming. Until then I will be a skeptic perhaps because I understand that man can not control the climate any more than the rotation of the moon. All of these doomsday scenarios are just like a bad movie. I can not even imagine a 1 degree rise in temperatures much less 2 and how that can have such a drastic effect on weather around the world. No single day has the same temps year after year after year. There is no thermostat for the Earth. The sun does not always have the same output so how are we to trust what one scientist says against another. It just proves that it is at best inconclusive.