Replies

...a majority of scientists accept its validity. The debate now was whether it is natural or manmade.

I don't think anybody ever disputed that the global temperature changes over time. What is in dispute is indeed the cause. But those who speak of global warming almost uniformly declare human activity to be the major cause, and the evidence to support that simply doesn't exist.

There are plenty of accounts in the scientific literature of temperature variations, CO2 levels, abnormal animal movements, and so forth. Studies come from a spectrum of scientific disciplines. All these reports are difficult to ignore and the disbelievers in global warming have not addressed them.

There are also plenty of accounts in scientific literature about the variation in our Sun's radiation levels over time, which is as likely as any to be the cause of global temperature variation.

I would have you note that the burden of proof is on those who positively assert something (human agency in global warming) rather than the skeptic. Any honest scientist must agree.

Non-scientists are not really qualified to make conclusions. I really don't put too much stock in what non-scientists say just like I don't put much stock into my optometrist's opinion about my tooth ache. I ask the dentist.

More than just non-scientists - a biologist may be a scientist but have done nothing remotely to do with global warming. Likewise in all the sciences. So it comes down to a handful of ideologically-bent "scientists" who promote global warming to secure research funding. Are there any non-compromised scientists who would agree with them? I would think not!

But those who speak of global warming almost uniformly declare human activity to be the major cause, and the evidence to support that simply doesn't exist.

As I have said before, most of the scientists believe the problem is a combination of both - human activity speeding up a natural process. When you paint all those who believe human activity to be a contributing factor with the anti-capitalist brush, you're admitting to another political idealogy.

So it comes down to a handful of ideologically-bent "scientists" who promote global warming to secure research funding.

If it were all about funding, there must be elements who are idealogically bent to disprove global warming, say factories or corporations who would be forced to reduce their emissions. Scientists who want to secure research funding for something, anything, would have no problem working for them. So where are these scientists?