Fun fact: lots of "global warming" charts only go back to the 1800s. But planet has been around longer than that...

Whenever you hear "a consensus of scientists agree" on anything, raise your hand and call them out on their pungent bovine feces. Science isn't about polling, agreement, or popularity, it's about truth and facts. At one time, a consensus of scientists agreed the Earth was flat. Didn't make it flat. Later scientists agreed the Earth was the center of the universe. Didn't make the Earth the center of the universe. Now we have a consensus of leftists who say Bruce Jenner is a woman because he feels like a woman. See where I'm going with this?

Science: finding truth and facts, not making agreements about feelings and public policy and guys wearing dresses while having penises.

Which isn't to say consensus doesn't have its place in the scientific process, but it should be used as a starting off point, better known as a "hypothesis," which is either proven or disproven. The consensus cannot be the result. Results are the results. As in a dude with a Y-chromosome is still a dude, regardless of his brand of makeup or choices in handbags. True story.

Also, this is kind of inconvenient, but needs to be said. The "97% of Climate Scientists Agree" meme all the climate-change robots harp on and on about is actually a load of pure organic manure, better left to grow your weed than fuel your global warming climate change passions.

In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

In other words:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels (Adolf Hitler's Propagandist)

Put that in your hookah and smoke it. Remember that little tidbit when you insist unborn babies are not humans, especially when you refuse to look at any evidence. Tell me again about how much you respect science.

Also good to remember anytime somebody is pushing anything on you? Follow the money. 'Cause guess what, kids? There's a lot of money in saying the Earth is warming and it's totes our fault...

FromThe National Review: In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

In other words, if your hypothesis is "Climate change is caused by man and SUVs and George W. Bush (either one) and cow farts" you'll get fat stacks of cash. But if your hypothesis is "Is man responsible for climate change, or does maybe the sun and naturally occurring fluctuating weather patterns or natural disasters like exploding volcanos have more do do with it?" you'll be taken out back and beaten with hemp ropes and then body-shamed. Because science is about finding truth, not agendas. Got it?

Lastly, isn't it funny how climate-change believers will automatically accuse climate-change deniers of being supported by BigOil? Here they are, funded by BIG GOVERNMENT and people like George Soros, and then they accuse you of being supported by BigOil, whether or not it's true or as false as Bruce Jenner's eye-lashes. Though he she is beautiful and stunning. Lawsuit averted. Pretty sure there's an adage for that. Something about pots and kettles and black lives matter or something. Give me a minute, I'll think of it...

... Nope, I'm just a racist.

The truth is there is zero truth allowed in the climate change debate. Ask a question of a climate-change believer and they'll evade the question or repeat their mantras. Like this idiot of the Sierra Club when talking with Ted Cruz. Trigger warning: Cruz murders the man. It's cold, calculated and down right brilliant. They ought to lock him up for twenty-five to life. You'll love it.

Whenever debate is silenced, whenever someone with an opposing viewpoint is labeled as a "denier," and whenever "supporters" call for the "deniers" imprisonment, you're not dealing with science. You're dealing with ideology, and a dangerous one at that.

Yes really.

Written by Courtney Kirchoff and Steven Crowder