Even if it were all true, how do you get China and India on board?

Huge money to be made as a scientist conducting research? Shirley you aren't serious? Have you ever conducted academic research yourself, or are you just repeating what you've heard someone else say? You realize that many "scientists" conducting research are working on their doctorates and not living or enjoying an extravagant lifestyle, in fact, many endure some significant hardships to do why they love (science). I've met quite a few of them up north, working independently, for universities and even for oil companies, and yes some of the oil company ones are paid decently (not mainline captain salary, but comfortable), but even they acknowledge the human caused climate change. Using your logic, chemtrails must be real too, as well as 911 conspiracies, the war in Iraq being started for revenge and oil and we never went to the moon.

Start a global warming thread......

I say start a more interesting thread on science naysayers and the pyschology behind why they choose to believe instead of accept reality. My final say on this thread is that anyone who chooses to believe we're not warming up the planet is an idiot. And I choose to believe I won't have a conversation with them any longer. The only debate is how bad we will make this beautiful home of ours for generations to come.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

The one thing we may see go out the window under the new regime, and quickly, is the 1500-hr. rule.

The airlines and their lobbying groups have been screaming to get it overturned almost since its inception.

They will play the card of air service being lost to small communities (who probably shouldn't have it anyway), and, of course, the bogeyman of -- gasp! -- higher fares.

But the truth is, the thought of paying regional pilots a livable wage and even recruitment and retention bonuses is making their stomachs turn.

As soon as the conveyor belt between the puppy factories and the regional airlines is turned on again, stand by for a return to the good old days of outsourcing and whipsawing.

Yes, let's do that. Then we can talk about why science deniers refuse to call a human baby in the womb a baby, and why they don't dare say that to an expecting mother who wants the baby.

Thanks for playing your two-faced, hypocritical game.

Yes, because cartoons from an organization that most undoubtedly thinks the world is only 6000 years old is the one we should be listening to for critical analysis of science.

You still haven't explained why you think it's a hoax. I have taken many climate science courses throughout my educational career. Every single professor even before global warming was "a thing" said it's a real thing, outside normal global fluctuations.

What does the government gain by proving the science? And even if you don't think it's happening, what is wrong with pushing forward into more sustainable green technologies? We want to live in a society ruled by Capitalism. I don't like cap and trade or other fine/tax incentives for green energy but outside of completely banning dirty technology, that is the only way our society can make green energy competition viable; at least until it is developed in great enough quantity to be able to compete against super cheap coal burning and natural gas plants. I know this is very socialist of me.

I lol'd.

Those cartoons come from highly respected and widely published cartoonists, including Pulitzer Prize winner Michael Ramirez...not any "organization".

Furthermore, I don't need to prove it is a giant fraud. You adherents need to prove it isn't. And things like the facts of Climategate...or the vile hypocrisy of jet-setting "enviromentalists"...or that 99% of the folks who claim GW skeptics "deny science" also claim "fetuses aren't babies".....don't help your cause one iota.

"Theory" isn't fact, and neither is "consensus".

Btw...let's also make one other thing perfectly clear:

Proving GW is real is one thing, proving it is caused by man and can therefore be reversed is an entirely different thing altogether. In other words, just because you true-believers may yet develop the actual proof that GW is real doesn't mean you have proven that it is caused by man and can be reversed. Not by a long-shot.

The conspiracy theorist gold mine. Even in the light of a mountain of evidence, no one can disprove a negative. Global Climate change isn't a theory. There is proof that artic sea ice is at an all time low. There is proof that global temperatures are at an all time high. There is significant correlation in the rise in CO2 and methane and the rise in global temperatures by using ice core samples. Sea levels are rising and ice sheets are shrinking. Again it isn't a theory that the climate is changing. It isn't a theory that there is a man-made impact to the change. The only debatable topic is to what extent humans are involved. Do you know where CO2 goes after it goes into the air? It is absorbed into water, creates carbonic acid and acidifies the ocean. But it's cool, the Great Barrier reef and ocean life isn't that important.

Again, even if you believe humans are only 10% responsible, why is it evil to disincentive dirty energy and incentive clean energy? Why is it evil when we punish companies when they do things like dump enough pollutants into the water to literally catch it on fire?

Let's park all the aircraft, green energy fast trains are the solution to AGW.