"Capt. JG" wrote in message

Really... you listen to both sides. So, what does science, real science
from scientists, actually say about GW?

If you bothered to be circumspect, you'd realize that the
meteorological/geographical scientific community is almost evenly split on
the subject.

I contend that there are always a couple of wackos who are unconvinced by
the preponderance of evidence.

I see. When scientists disagree with your point of view, they are wackos?

What do you believe in?

I've made that clear in any number of posts. But since you seem to read
selectively: I believe that the global warming we are currently
experiencing is, to some unknown degree, influenced by the activities of
mankind. I also believe that the warming trend is at least party natural
and predictable, and would have occurred during this same period even if the
Earth had no human population. The net effect of human activity upon the
warming of the planet is unknown, albeit real. Until we actually know, any
attempts to correct the perceived problem will likely have one of two
outcomes: 1) it will achieve nothing substantive, or 2) it will cause
unforseen changes which could make the situation worse. Cleaning up
emissions is a laudable endeavor, if for no other reason than to clean up
the air we breathe.

So far, I have yet to see you cite any actual facts on the subject.

I've cited at least as many facts as you have. You spout vitriol and
platitudes, but offer up no evidence. You automatically assume that
*everyone* already knows all about GW, or at least your version of it. You
have a closed mind.

Max