It is below you? Well, since it isn't beneath you, look down to where it is below you and try to refute it. Or are you standing on it to make yourself look taller?

You're claiming millions of scientists are wrong, based on what? Your wishful thinking? You post an ad for your blog, decry the Democrats based on pretty much nothing and yet my cynicism is "below" you. In other words you have no answers.

You and Paglia remind me of the old cartoon The Critic where he had a cardboard cutout of himself with a voice chip. Over and over it said "Buy my book! Buy my book! Buy my book!"

Speaking of "a web of cult-inspired lies"

"the players - rich, white, and male - are completely innocent."

No, there is insufficient evidence to prosecute. Not the same thing. You don't know their guilt or innocence any more than I do.

I'm sorry, Sir, but you are wrong. The question of what the "right" temperature is has come up - do you know what it is? Or does it "change"?

Why'd you put change in quotes? Is it not what you really mean? Of course temperature changes over time, that's not the question. The question is Have humans caused an increase in temperature that is measurable and detrimental? and the answer to that is Yes. Dr. Locrian is entirely right. For others like you, I suggest you go to the website www.timecube.com. I'm sure he'll tell you that you're "educated stupid!" (he tells everyone that.)

Looks like your reading comprehension is a bit wanting there too.

Please, point out which of the following statements I made about global warming is wrong.

I didn't say they were. You asked "what prevents one from accepting provisional likelihood of a theory while maintaining a healthy scientific skepticism?"

And that's what I replied to. I even quoted the line in question.

My original comments regarding the hypocrisy of the "left" in castrating opinions that don't toe the dogmatic line were in no way related to Paglia's statements about global warming

Perhaps you didn't. What likely made me think so was the line "I agree with Poco" and the fact that most of the letters complaining about Paglia are specifically taking issue with her "ideas" about climate change. If this is incorrect and you do indeed disagree with her as well, then I apologize for luming you in with the Right wingers who love to misinterpret science for their own ends.

The issue is that I wasn't talking about global warming. Will I need to post again further clarifying or will this suffice?

Nope, you've finally clarified. The confusing part here is that you said "That is not the issue" when the entire preceeding paragraph had been about climate change. Had you said "Climate change is not the issue I'm referring to" or something like it, then all confusion would have been gone earlier.

Science - the scientific method doesn't work on consensus (how many people believe something) it works on facts

I see you have a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method and what consensus means in this context. Consesus here doesn't mean "how many people believe something". It means that most scientists have examined the data, performed their own experiments and found the conclusions to be valid. Also, science doesn't work on "facts", it works on evidence, experimentation and theory.

look closely at the cultish thinking around us. We wish more of you would consider that.

I have no idea what "cultish thinking" you're accusing me of. Reading scientific journals, studying and drawing the conclusion that global warming is both real and primarily caused by human activity? I fail to see how thinking for myself and studying is "cultish". I'd be far more likely to describe fringe ideas held by small groups who insist they're right despite a preponderance of conflicting evidence to be "cultish". You know, like what you're promoting.

Even though Al Gore won't debate anyone on it?

Why would he? He's not a scientist, he's a well informed celebrity spokesman.

Even though skeptics don't get the same airtime as the boosters?

You're right. The skeptics tend to get far more airtime thanks to Fox and the mainstream media's idea of "fairness". And if you take into account proportionality of those in the scientific community that hold either idea, then the skeptics get airtime all out of proportion with their numbers. How do you propose to fix that and get the scientists (non-skeptics) the proper amount of airtime?

Even though most of it's charges have been floating around - in new age circles - for decades?

Wait, you're proposing that the new agers are the ones giving you your skeptical ideas?

I would suggest you get a grip on yourself and read more than articles you agree with - that's how "truth" is discovered.

No, that is how an understanding of various viewpoints is discovered. Perhaps more metaphysical "truths" can be discovered that way too. I read the science articles, the studies, the journals. Were I in the field, I'd do experiments and collect data. I'd share these findings with other scientists and see how my findings correlate with theirs. That is how scientific truth is discovered.

get yourself subscriptions to Nature, Science and Scientific American.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/

http://www.sciam.com

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=83D2B666-E7F2-99DF-32FD8CC329BC0535&chanID=sa028

http://www.nature.com/index.html

http://www.livescience.com/

You're arguing semantics? How cheap can you get?

I wasn't arguing semantics, I was correcting your definition. That's quite different. You quite clearly don't understand what you're talking about, simply using the space to urge people to go to your blog more.