It seems like almost every argument made for anthropogenic global warming has a corresponding, virtually identical argument against it, and vice versa.
People who believe in it can point to numerous credible climate scientists. So can people who don't.
People who don't believe can point out potential financial or career related motives for providing supporting evidence. People who do believe can point to financial or career related motives for providing contradictory evidence.
People who don't believe in global warming can point to how the theory has changed over the years (from "global warming" to a more complex "climate change"). People who do believe can point to how those who don't have gone from a flat denial, to the "natural cycle" argument.
Deniers have "climate gate" to point to. Believers have opposing studies funded, directly or indirectly, by the oil industry.
The evidence regarding the average temperatures prior to about 1850 has to be extrapolated from a variety of artifacts (tree rings are the example that come to mind), and there is controversy regarding which artifacts to work from to arrive at the most accurate data. Both sides have, of course, selected the data that best suits their respective arguments, and both hurl accusations of dishonesty at the other side.
People who believe in it can point to numerous credible climate scientists. So can people who don't.
People who don't believe can point out potential financial or career related motives for providing supporting evidence. People who do believe can point to financial or career related motives for providing contradictory evidence.
People who don't believe in global warming can point to how the theory has changed over the years (from "global warming" to a more complex "climate change"). People who do believe can point to how those who don't have gone from a flat denial, to the "natural cycle" argument.
Deniers have "climate gate" to point to. Believers have opposing studies funded, directly or indirectly, by the oil industry.
The evidence regarding the average temperatures prior to about 1850 has to be extrapolated from a variety of artifacts (tree rings are the example that come to mind), and there is controversy regarding which artifacts to work from to arrive at the most accurate data. Both sides have, of course, selected the data that best suits their respective arguments, and both hurl accusations of dishonesty at the other side.