And I can sincerely say that all points are lost on you. Like a pair of others here, you read what you think you're going to read - no matter what the words are.
With respect, Merlin, you re not the person to lecture anyone on that. An objective mind (as you claim to be) would arrive at the topic with no preconceived notions for or against global warming. You have clearly made your mind up against it, and no matter what information comes out, there apparently is no changing it.
To "poke holes in data" is a problem in and of itself; like it or not.
It depends on what sort of holes you are poking. The ones you have been poking in it (four times in the past where you claim CO2 followed, rather than led temps) is not a hole, it is an anomaly. As you can see by the chart, most of the time, it is the other way around - CO2 leading, which is where the earth is at now.
Scientists have singled out mankind because we are the most obvious change in the planet's environment, not because they can prove we are causing it.
I disagree, and, as I am sure you are aware of, so does the vast majority of the scientific community.
I challenged another poster in this forum to create a Global Warming - Global Climate Change thread here that would only allow for original discussion and scientific data - NO Cuts and Pastes, No news articles, No emotion (except for humor).
Very difficult to have a scientific discussion if you can't at least have some graphs or cite some of the original research of scientists. Why make an exception for humor, so apparently exceptions can be made to needle those who don't share the same beliefs? That sounds a little immature.
But your sentiment does not match your prior actions. You are emotional on the subject every time even a modicum of truth hits home. Whenever you mention "BIG OIL!" or "Hoax" or switch the subject to something silly like the Supreme Court decision - you are having an emotional response.
Hardly. Big oil has been very much responsible for putting a lot of the propaganda out there, I have yet to see you acknowledge that fact. As for the usage of the word, "hoax," I'm assuming that is in reference to James Inhofe, the Senator who has blocked the Senate from taking measures on global warming for the last six years, who happens to believe it to be a hoax. Both are a point of fact, and bringing up either is simply citing the reasons for the controversy (at least in the media) and why new regulations haven't been passed in Congress. I find it a bit comical that either point would be one of contention, when apparently conservatives have been reduced to attacking Al Gore's lifestyle (though many of his proponents happen to be very rich themselves).
It is the same thing that causes you to not notice the growing skepticism.
Unlikely, I have simply not seen the growing skepticsm, nor any scientific reason for it other than people do not want to believe they are responsible.
