> If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place? I do like it, I like it a lot - it perfectly represents the manipulative nature of the sit

> If you don't like the term, why did you use it in the first place? I do like it, I like it a lot - it perfectly represents the manipulative nature of the situation. "...both scientific consensus and political will have come a long way." -- VP Al Gore, Kyoto Climate Change Conference 1997 > What does the "that" refer to? The false dichotomy you seem so interested in pursuing. The ratio of cooling to warming papers doesn't mean anything when neither deliver accurate models. > You were gamed by a TV show designed to get viewers by pushing some wacky ideas. I wonder if you are so obtuse that you believe that to be an accurate estimate of my position, or even a clever dig. It just makes you look desperate to avoid the fact that science plays little role in what has become an ad-campaign/power-grab.