My two cents on Climate change.

O.K., I have to say something.  When I scientist I respect, Neil deGrasse Tyson, takes pot shots on Twitter:  "Climate Change Deniers are often politically conservative", I feel compelled to say something.

If Neils Bohr had started calling Einstein incompetent, and had tried to discredit Einstein instead of (correctly) attacking the "science" behind Einstein's thought experiments, we probably would not have the Quantum theories we have today (if at all).

Bohr did the correct things, the ONLY things he could do when Einstein proposed his thought experiments on how Quantum Mechanics "failed".  This is the type of science, "Bohr's science" that is required to disprove a proposed scientific theory.  No other method can be used to invalidate, or disprove, a scientific theory.

If the scientists at the IPCC had simply shown where the science, or the data, used by the "nay-sayers" was wrong, I would have felt much better, and avidly joined the "team" warning about the dangers of anthropogenic Global Warming.  But when the IPCC actually CHANGED the data in Lamb's original climate report (the same report issued by the IPCC in 1990) to reflect their beliefs, and had any scientist who questioned the data, the models used, or the results  made into scapegoats and PERSONALLY attacked, I called bullshit.

When Michael Crichton denounces "consensus" science and calls for facts, transparency, and peer reviews (and immediately gets castigated by the scientists of the "consensus"), I call bullshit.

I'm sorry.  I believe in the scientific method.  The "consensus" was against Jenner when he suggested infecting someone with cowpox could immunize them against smallpox.  His scientific proof finally won out (with rabid support from the general population).  When Einstein invented thought experiments that poked holes in Quantum Mechanics, Bohr stayed up nights finding the holes in his experiments and presented them, directly, to rebut Einstein's conclusions.  Both are good examples of the ideal way science should be practiced.   Not "Consensus science".  Not hiding the data, or the models, or calling the scientists who don't "believe" dirty names, or banning them.  Not, in fact, by "believing" at all.  But by looking at the data, at the test methods (models in this case), and slowly walking through all the steps used to arrive at the "anthropogenic" result.  If you take the IPCC data, and their models, and accurately follow all the steps taken by the IPCC, you will wind up at the conclusion that there is significant anthropogenic cause for Global Warming.

If you do not.  Then they are wrong.  Period.