– The arguments against the relation between global warming and CO2 emissions are probably the result of financial interests having hired scientists to do studies that discredit global warming theories and create inaction through lack of faith in existing science. I strongly suspect that the confusion is by design, not by lack of good global warming science.
For the record, I am not aware of any scientific research that attempts to “discredit” certain popular theories of global warming. There is research that goes item by item and conclusively establishes the falsehood of various popular presumptions, but that is not an atttempt to discredit anything, but just to clarify the actual data.
What I am aware of is research that conclusively establishes that variations in solar radiation are the predominant factor in changes in the climate of the earth (and other planets). I am aware of absolutely no controversy in regard to that research.
So, on the one hand, there is a massive amount of paranoid research (at least some of which is in controversy) clearly funded by special interest groups, plus there is is some poorly publicized research in no controversy. Why doesn’t the media focus on the “solar warming” model? The research is not sensationalist. That is a problem since the media is interested in ratings.
There is also research on what factors alter CO2 levels and how that has changed things across long periods of time (thousands of years, etc). Again, there is no controversy that I am aware of.
So, there are lots of uninformed people in a panic about controversial research (which is publicized by the media). Further, there is a much smaller number of people who are not in a panic at all and whose research is not in the least controversial (or sensationalist), but of course there has been little attention from the media.
Since I have already posted links a few times to some of the “solar-based warming” research on Robert’s facebook pages, I will assume that either (1) he is actually not really interested in the specifics of the issue or (2) he lacks the composure and logical skills to identify what is competent research and what is sensationalist “media fodder” funded by special interests. Based on my history with Robert, I will go with #1- that you do not actually care enough about the issue to research it.