If I hear "Scientific Consensus" once more...

Consensus in Science is the implicit agreement on direction amongst the passengers and crew onboard the Titanic.

The united front of nodding faces of the UN IPCC's 'thousands of scientists' who are 'in agreement' and 'experts in their fields' adds no proof to the theories of man-made global warming or climate change. They don't improve the accuracy of the climate models that don't even predict the weather we've already had!

As Albert Einstein once pointed out - a consensus of thousands is proved wrong by only one proof.

Because there is hand-wringing consensus amongst newspaper editors and television schedulers and program producers that their industry should be rushing to report the 'scientific consensus' doesn't mean they are reporting truth or fact. It means simply that they correctly read the need to be reporting this - the need to sell newspapers to readers, to sell advertisng dollars during environmental documentaries.

Avian Flu was reported to be the doom of mankind. In one documentary alone, dripping with suggestive, emotive language, I could fill sheets of paper noting down the use of key terms from the language of environental and disease doom and apocolypse.

Avian Flue, having made Donald Rumsffeld adn Roche millions, was dropped by the media faster than a hot potato. And here we are again. Only this time there's a consensus!

Oh! there was for Avian Flu as well you say? Hmmm now, does that mean that Global warming might be a popular theme, likely to appear and disappear like the polar ice and the poor drowing polar bears? Surely not!