dc_dux

I know its more politically advantageous for some to believe the organization behind the "co2science" article/site - the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, wth its funding and ties to "big oil" - then to believe the "hype" and research of the National Academy of Sciences or the the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries.

I agree there is "conflicting scientific data", but I would suggest that the preponerance of recent, independent, peer-reviewed data leans toward some measure of human activity as a contributing factor to global warming.

BUT, even assuming the "confliciting scientific data" supports neither position, the fact that there is "conflicting scientific data" is enough reason alone for continued research by government science agencies.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire