@Bayern710
I am a scientist (chemist not environmentalist) and my biggest problem with the global warming debate is that science so often gets thrown out the window. Whenever one side or the other attempts to point out flaws in the methodology it is written off as being either paid for by big oil or coming from some tree hugger (depending on which side). I have read that the famous "hockey stick" curve was adjusted by 87 years in order to fit the industrial revolution. No explanation was ever given. I have seen data that effectively ignores the Medieval warming. And I still hear about temperatures (open northwest passage or whatever) higher (or whatever) then "in recorded history". The kicker here is that for the most part "recorded history" usually means from 1940's to 1970 for some records (i.e. see recorded history for open north west passage). I then see emails (granted they were stolen) where they are talking about adjusting data to show global warming. I have also seen graphs depicting the average global temperature going back millions of year where the average temp is about 17C higher, with occasional 20C dips for ice ages (we have only increased 3C from the last ice age). I have also seen overlays of atmospheric CO2 on the million year scale and there is absolutely no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Even with all this I still am not a skeptic of man made global warming I just haven't been convince one way or the other. It is also probably a great idea to conduct our affairs as if man made global warming is true. At the very least we would be leaving out kids a better world.
