Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

[Aractus]

Not to mention, the result of your study isn't there when you apply for funding. Hypothesis are not treated as biases when you write a grant. Furthermore, just because you want to prove something doesn't mean you'll be able to prove it. That's why religious people to this day do not have proof of god and antitheists do not have proof that there is no god, trust me, both parties would greatly appreciate that. Saying so is directly accusing those who have shown global warming to be making up data. For me to take that accusation seriously you need to show that they have made up data. Otherwise it's just a baseless accusation.

Computer climate modelling is made up. And even admitted as evidence, all it shows is a link between climate change and anthropogenic CFC's - well anthropogenic CFC's should make some difference. But then you have claims that the climate is driven by the EGHE, that water vapour "positively reinforces the effect" and nonsense claims about projections which have all failed to pass. There is good climate science, however the theories about how much the earth will warm over the next 100 years are all based on assumptions and unproven facts. Exactly how much of the warming trend is natural is as yet unknown. That's a huge unknown factor since - if we assume that the planet should be in a state of global warming sans human activity (a safe assumption), then it would mean you have to deduct that from the 0.6 degrees of warming.

No one - including sceptics - doubt that the EGHE contributes to global warming, the amount that it contributes is debatable.