The first reason you give above assumes that the thousands of scientists backing the human-cause theory are willing to prostitute their credentials for funding. I don’t believe this. If I were they, I wouldn’t back bad science just for funding, and I don’t think there are that many who would.

The second reason you give doesn’t hold water for me either. I don’t think popularity has much to do with a scientist’s willingness to vocalize his theories. In fact, I would think a scientist with good evidence behind him would be MORE vocal in the face of opposition because he feels his data will vindicate him and make a bigger name for himself.

In my experience, the best reward for a scientist is his name, reputation, and the solidity of his theories. Both the reasons given expressly contradict this.

1) The same reason almost all American’s do anything. Money. There is a huge amount of money being pored into Global Warming research. Everyone wants a cut. Scientist don’t get this type of funding unless there is a crisis which will affect everyone.

2) There are plenty of dissenters, but it’s become unpopular to do so. Many have just given up. Others are being forced through all kinds of pressures (social, political and other) to not be too vocal.

Another article that I failed to link to in my posting indicates that there is simultaneous warming on Mars. Thus indicating something is warming our part of the solar system. Not just our planet. Interesting.

1) If humans aren’t causing global warming, what is the motivation behind the widespread assertion that we do? Are these geeks just looking for their 15 minutes of fame? Are they getting a kick out of scaring everyone? The money is certainly more in the camp of business-as-usual regarding the environment than in raising the specter of having to spend trillions of dollars cleaning things up, so we can’t say they’re looking to profit from it (although Al Gore has made a killing). I can’t think of a single reasonable explanation for scientists backing the position if there is no solid scientific basis for it. If the evidence on the video is as irrefutable as it’s couched, then why would thousands of self-respecting scientists back the “human-cause” theory? It’s a big jump from “Margaret Thatcher thought it was a good way to keep striking miners out of her hair” to “it really appealed to the environmental movement” to “thousands of not-as-smart-as-us scientists back the theory for no apparent reason.”

2) Where are these dissenting voices when the world meets together regarding global warming? It seems that if there were a significant contingent of dissenters, it would be more newsworthy than a video on YouTube. If there are that many serious scientists who agree with the dozen cited on the video, how are the liberals quashing them all? Or are these the only ones smart enough to believe it?