You seem to be frustrated sacrieur. Calm down. Ponder what your "opponents" are saying. If you read, most of the people are simply saying there's no way to know the truth without wading through biased and muddied research, plagued by political influence. Nobody worth reading has said whether it's definitively true or false.
Obvious troll is not so obvious?
Apparently. Happy April.
The sad part, however, is that some scientists are this frustrated over the topic.
---
Like all jokes, mine certainly had some truth.
Global warming is a fact. That is, an observable occurrence measured and recording. The average global temperature of the Earth is warming.
The theory then, is that we are responsible for an unprecedented amount of warming. It wasn't before long before a scientific consensus was reached and the focus shifted from figuring out the cause to extrapolating what may happen, and indeed, what
is already happening. Steps are already being taken by the community to attempt to reverse the effect.
Of course, you could deny all of this and as you put it TiKels, "If you read, most of the people are simply saying there's no way to know the truth without wading through biased and muddied research, plagued by political influence." And it's true, there are very large egos in research, confirmation bias, and various other things that do plague science. Milikan was a very regrettable occurrence, but one we can learn from.
Fortunately, in science the peer review process weeds out a lot of this. Results that cannot be reproduced are observed with due suspicion. Science journals, and especially prestigious ones like
Nature simply make it horribly difficult to present bad science. This isn't to say that there isn't fraud and bias in science, but that the effects are rather mitigated from what one may expect in other fields, and even more importantly, being wrong in science is okay, as long as you admit you were wrong and not try to cover it all up and the like (like that neutrino result thing).
In far as political bias on this particular issue goes, that small graphic is disturbingly correct. There is far more political push to deny that we're causing global warming than scientists can or will admit. Remember those hacked emails? They were reviewed and there was nothing fishy in them at all. Nothing to illustrate a global conspiracy across climatologists. Which, I should admit, is a pretty extraordinary claim and should require extraordinary evidence before it is given any credibility at all.
I wouldn't say that big oil are all conspiring, but I would be lying and wrong if I said they weren't interested in protecting their profits. And they do have a very obscene amount of money. By direct logic, if the world began putting strict consumption standards on coal, oil, etc., then these oil and coal companies would have the most to lose because consumption would decrease. Groups like
the Heartland Institute are very clearly anti-science, and do distort facts and actively use social engineering. The reasons may be as varied as protecting personal profit to opposing additional governmental control, but the opposition is there in a rather remarkable level of force.
---
I don't necessarily care whether you believe the scientific consensus or not, but keep in mind a lot of what you're going to hear about this topic really needs to be traced back to the original resource or sources and see what's actually the case. If there is any topic that needs copious amounts of fact checking it's this one. Oh, and I wouldn't pay any credit to sensationalist movies such as
An Inconvenient Truth or
The Global Warming Swindle. They both got an absurd amount of facts wrong.
---
The irony of this entire thread is that I suspect the whole thing is just one big joke played by Kame.
None.