You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means. A scientific consensus is different from a political one. The two uses have very different meanings.
The arctic is releasing methane gas into the atmosphere. [video=youtube;br8BOnCkjd4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br8BOnCkjd4[/video]
Mazulu Yes, that seems to be your problem...on everything. So you make crap up. You better hope(pray if you think it will do any good)that the frozen Methane Hydrate that is currently trapped in the ocean sediments doesn't decide to melt. It's strange stuff, it can be a solid block one minute and explosively outgas with just a couple of degrees of warming. To the extent that there are historical references to boats sinking in boiling water(gas infused water is lighter than flat water and enough gas gives you foam). And if that happens in large scale it is game over for the climate change deniers(and everyone else, too). :facepalm:
Saw this in the comments section of an article: "Higgs Boson • 9 minutes ago − The Dopey Democrat's "Climate Change" Dictionary: CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’ It's the new "Global Warming"....the name may have changed, but the hoax is still the same. PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train. SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both. DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth. NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way."
Yeah, what do those nutcase academics and scientists know anyway? Everyone knows that all the money wealthy energy conglomerates and polluters are pumping into the climate change denial effort is just being overwhelmed by the money spent by universities on climate change research...just like all the money spent by cigarette companies to convince people cigarettes didn't cause cancer. And those damn Democrats have the audacity to accept scientific findings like evolution! What is next?
The deniers will be proven wrong, in turn provoking an unprecedented outpouring of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
We need a version of Godwin's Law to handle youtube. How about "First person to link a youtube video without quote, argument, or posted context, is deemed to have lost the argument".
This thread has nothing to do with the pros or cons regarding global warming er, climate change; it's a confirmation of biblical truth--a parable if you will--specifically, its testimony concerning human beings and their nature.
I notice you have studiously avoided any of the more technical discussions on the matter, instead opting for this political nonsense. Are y ou actually here to do anything other than troll? (and no, I'm not going to bother looking at your youtube links).