I’m telling you, this has been hashed out to the point of nausea on both sides before here. Multiple times. Read the thread I linked.
You’re rite. It is pointless to continue debating (I don’t consider it arguing). I just don’t swallow whole what the media dishes out, especially when there’s contradictory data offered by equally respectable experts. This ain’t limited to global warming - check out the coffee controversy sometime. The ‘experts’ still ain’t sure if it’s good for you because it holds off diabetes, or bad for you since the caffeine causes high blood pressure - and decaf appears to have no effect either way. Every year a study comes out negating the previous one. All I was saying is the global warming issue is hardly settled, but the fine distinction that I didn’t make previously was that the hysteria surrounding the issue, such as the media trumpeting Big Business collaborating to pollute our atmosphere and thus cause g.w., smacks of a conspiracy. I’m not an expert either way on g.w., but until it’s proven not to be simple cyclical changes or some other natural phenomenon, why would I blindly accpet what the media tells me? Remember, they were reporting this in the late 80s:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/1258
The fact that they couldn’t replicate the results under controlled conditions was irrelevant: ‘experts’ said it was so, and the media procalimed it to be. When climatologists or whatever the g.w.-related subfield experts are, are able to replicate the conditions to cause g.w., with observable and undisputed data, I’m on board. Until then, I’m a skeptic.