[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Many people claim there is scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused by man.

The Weather Channel climatologists certainly seem to promote that belief.

Yet, more than 30,000 scientists disagree, and have stated so publicly, providing counter-evidence.

So, which is it?

Is it possible that some of these scientists are: lying? duped? viewing only select bits of data that suit their own worldview?

Regardless, shouldn’t the evidence speak for itself?

Why and how can there be contradictory declarations by similarly trained and qualified scientists regarding the same data?

Do you really put your faith in scientists?

[philetus]

Many people claim there is scientific consensus that global warming exists and is caused by man.”

And what does the founder of The Weather Channel have to say?

Coleman: Was there a consensus of 2,500 scientists at the Bali meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Heavens no. The key paragraphs or chapters of their report and the research documents behind it, which are very voluminous, were not widely read by these scientists.

If you look at the history of the IPCC, its mission and existence was to prove that there is climate change. So they start hiring scientists and giving them research money to go out and prove that its mission is valid.

But 19,000 scientists signed a petition against the Kyoto Protocol, and 400-plus scientists spoke out against global warming in 2007, along with at least four dozen TV meteorologists. There is no consensus.

Coleman: I never believed it was coming, nor do I believe global warming is coming. Are you aware that officials of both the Canadian and Russian governments in the past six weeks have warned of a coming ice age? Climatologists are constantly reacting to swings in the climate.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7524

[Boagenes]

No, but scientists can use modern technology to present us with objective results that will speak for themselves. I doubt the veracity of the supposed tests that were done.

The flesh and the blood could simply be something the priest bought, dug up, whatever and used preservatives of some kind on. I don't know the technical aspects of it, but I'd bet that even in the 7th century they knew ways to do this.

I would like to believe it was real, but I don't. This just looks phony, to me. It would be nice if the church would open it up to new rounds of tests and let a group of non-Catholic, non-Italian scientists come in and do the testing.