Originally Posted by
rickair7777
You are correct. There's a lot we don't know, and it's hard to say for certain either way with the data we have. And everybody has an agenda which makes it even harder. You expect big business to spin things, it's too bad the science community had to go down that road too. If they had stayed on the high ground, they would be a lot more credible when/if they get some solid data. As things stand, they seem more interested in grant money, career opportunities, and leveraging political power than anything else.
That's my take on it too. It is a hard subject to sort out and the climate data gets sketchier and less accurate the farther back you go in environmental history. It turns into a political match and a waste of time at that point. I am all for trying to find anthropogenic connections to global temperature cycles, if there are any. But driving public policy with it is premature at best. In the meantime, I feel that humanity can gradually make improvements in carbon use and energy sourcing as long as those energy alternatives are justified in more ways than a connection to global warming.