Well, you have me on that one. Since the issue is so politicised and important, everyone has an agenda on this one. And the harder they try to make it look like they don't the more suspicious I am.
That's why you should ALWAYS be reading scientific studies and research and not blogs OR news articles (at least not ONLY those things).
Your quote on saying you've got "thousands of articles" may be something. I've heard people post the same htings. But the fact is that if you are quoting blogs and news articles, I don't necessarily take that as evidence.
So, two things. I am not new to this; and I have followed my MO regarding researching controversial issues: Read both (all) sides to form my own opinion.
You may not feel new but you haven't demonstrated a strong knowledge yet.
Oh, and a third thing. I talked this thing out a long time ago.
That's the OPPOSITE of a good thing. You seem to suggest that that you did a lot of research back in 2003-5.
That is ALMOST 20 years ago.
How do you come to the conclusion that the science would NOT have changed?
OK, Two words: Atmospheric pressure.
This is the closest thing to an alternate theory to CO2 global warming that I find interesting and a scientific explanation.
However, it doesn't actually change the need for action; like....at ALL. Because humans are also releasing gases into the atmosphere (hence the CO2). And that would ALSO be increasing the pressure in our atmosphere.
So we're back at square 1.
What you've said is factual, but misses the point. Sure, CO2 "absorbs and re-emits infrared radiation" That's a fact. Where people go off the rails is when they then quote that fact to support all sorts of AGW nonsense.
Yeah sorry. I don't mean to be difficult but you need to give some GOOD examples of this because CO2 (and ALL those other greenhouse gases) trapping ENERGY is the basis for ALL the problems.
Do you have some examples of that nonsense?
I assume you know what "AGW" means. Of course, they prefer "climate change" now, since everybody in the US is in a serious cold snap.
And yes, I know that's just "weather", but it still influences the uninformed. And that's where political battles are won. And this whole AGW thing IS a political battle, quite literally for world dominance of the "average person."
They prefer climate change because it is a BETTER description of what is happenning.
FYI, the cold snap through the central US and Texas is due PRECISELY to climate change. Let me know if I can help explain that one out. I would assume with your research you would already know how all those things are interconnected but I'd happily inform you if needed.
The data simply doesn't support it.
If the data is applied appropriately, it does.
HOWEVER, there are times when folks say because Lubbock Texas has been cooling for 20 years global warming is questionable.
I've presented two sites. Here's another:
Watts Up With That?
I'm familiar with James Watts.
And this is another good youtube channel. I especially like this video because it shows how easy it is to fool people that are ignorant on an extremely complex subject. And some of these people end up having unbelievable hubris as they argue their point:
Sorry, I should have said I have a standing policy of not giving a single hooha to a youtube video. It started when I used to watch those videos and they provide a bunch of lacklustre misinformation in a VERY convincing manner.
Simply put, I don't have the time to deal with 37 of 40 poor claims to find the few quasi-legitimate arguments those videos may have and comment on those.