And again, real scientists would not affirm what they can not prove (unless they have a financial incentive). Real scientists would not deny what they can not unprove (hence the real scientists dont deny the possibility). Which side of the debate is on the side of science; the ones that say the science is settled or the ones that say we dont know? I know which side I would side with.

Given a political bias, a driving goal to obtain ever present grant money (from Uncle Sam), a desire to obtain notoriety, blind ignorance, and the overriding desire to shove an opinion down the throat of everyone, any organization, group, or scientific body will ascribe to anything!

Scientific proof? We don’t need no stinking scientific proof!

Why we are doomed:

Phil Gramm: The Multiple Distortions of Wind Subsidies - WSJ.com

"The costs of wind subsidies are extraordinarily high—$52.48 per one million watt hours generated, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. By contrast, the subsidies for generating the same amount of electricity from nuclear power are $3.10, from hydropower 84 cents, from coal 64 cents, and from natural gas 63 cents."

"But the cost to taxpayers is only part of the problem. Subsidized, wind-generated electricity is displacing other, much cheaper sources of power. The subsidies are so high that wind-power producers can pay utilities to take the electricity they produce and still make a profit. Such "negative pricing" has occurred for some time in the Midwest, the Pacific Northwest and in Texas—and, according to the Energy Information Administration, it will likely grow."

"When electricity demand peaked in Chicago on July 6, 2012, wind energy, which comprised 2,700 megawatts of capacity, was able to supply only four megawatts of electricity, a stunning 99.8% failure rate. In Europe, one day this February wind power produced almost a third of Germany's electricity—but four days later it produced none (it was a still day)."

If it is a flop, a scam, or a pipe dream, never fear; Uncle Sam will subsidize it and call it a success story!

Which reminds me. I better get my personal “Enteric Fermentation” recycling system subsidized by Uncle Sam so I can become rich and suck off of the Uncle Sam spigot.

Wait it was stimulus what could go wrong:

Whoops

Hmmmm ... Antarctica's ice shelf is growing and Russian's are freezing to death with record cold.

Russians Freezing to Death in Freakish Cold Snap | Winter in Russia Kills 45 | LiveScience

End of the "pause" or lying, bureaucratic scientists?

State of the Climate

Perhaps a look at their global statement would be more enlightening.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | January 2012

Your US centric view is not the big picture. In the big picture we have gained about sixth tenths of a degree F in the last century, which confirms the 15,000 year old warming trend. No news here.

In your opinion, the fact that 2012 was the warmest year on record for the continuous US is not cause for the slightest amount of concern?

I have no concern about that at all, nor do I have any concern about a six tenths of one degree F rise over the last century or the warming trend of the last 15,000 years.

If I was concerned, I very much doubt my concern would have had any influence at all on those events, nor would any action I might have taken prevented them from happening.

What are your concerns?