Believing is for religion, science is about facts. And so far, the famed IPCC (which is NOT a scientific body, and is NOT composed or endorsed by scientists who are climate-related experts) and other AGW-endorsing individuals and organizations have NOT showed any scientific evidence which would endorse the hypothesis of AGW.
The data hypothetically backing up the AGW-idea is inconsistent and in many cases just plain wrong (forged, adjusted to fit). Those who're the loudest AGW supporters are generally NOT competent to discuss it in any serious or professional manner.
And maintainging such a hoax is pretty easy once you have actors like Al Gore and special effects-filled blockbusters like hi...

Believing is for religion, science is about facts. And so far, the famed IPCC (which is NOT a scientific body, and is NOT composed or endorsed by scientists who are climate-related experts) and other AGW-endorsing individuals and organizations have NOT showed any scientific evidence which would endorse the hypothesis of AGW.
The data hypothetically backing up the AGW-idea is inconsistent and in many cases just plain wrong (forged, adjusted to fit). Those who're the loudest AGW supporters are generally NOT competent to discuss it in any serious or professional manner.
And maintainging such a hoax is pretty easy once you have actors like Al Gore and special effects-filled blockbusters like his movie, and shocking daily headlines about catastrophies that are waiting just around the corner, and of course you have millions of people who follow blindly like a herd of sheep before thinking 'why' and 'who' they're following.

<<<science is about facts>>>. Not really. Data is a better word, and as kmcolo suggests I think, the interpretation of data, and both the methodology of data gathering and the determination of what data are to be gathered are both questionable. All science is questionable 0 that is how it proceeds. If science is "about" anything, it is about modelling since this motivates the type of data to be gathered, the methodolgy of data gathering, the interpretation of the data and the ongoing modification of models. Any scientist past elementary grade school level welcomes questioning and expects challenges. Even the most tangential familiarity with science would show this. To accuse scientists of ho...

<<<science is about facts>>>. Not really. Data is a better word, and as kmcolo suggests I think, the interpretation of data, and both the methodology of data gathering and the determination of what data are to be gathered are both questionable. All science is questionable 0 that is how it proceeds. If science is "about" anything, it is about modelling since this motivates the type of data to be gathered, the methodolgy of data gathering, the interpretation of the data and the ongoing modification of models. Any scientist past elementary grade school level welcomes questioning and expects challenges. Even the most tangential familiarity with science would show this. To accuse scientists of hoax and being foolish dupes of a political process is at least silly and at worst disrespectful of science.