Global Warming Debate part 4

Continued from part 3..

K: Althought I would usually like to argue/debate, it's not clear to me if some of that is important or useful. I won't say the reasons but anyways, I looked at the global dimming video. It seems pretty interesting. And then I looked up its criticisms, and realized that the video is another scare tactic. The more a theorist can make you emotional like with fear/concern/excitement/etc., the more you are prone to believing in it, and the less skeptical you will be of it. I won't say everything in the video was false, but I also realize that's a great topic for everyone involved. The media loves to telecast the video. The scientists love the attention and the funding involved. Since it supports global warming, now you are getting more people to support it. The stakes are high for people who believe this could be true. However a neutral scientist's views could be far less interesting and he might find lots of loop holes in it. If you search for criticisms of this theory there are some good ones you can find.

I found something quite interesting that I would like to share ...

I haven't verified it but if it were true, what could that mean? Perhaps it's not global warming that's the issue, perhaps earth is a very interesting subject!!

Me: I was looking for some kind of neutral and scientific presentation/documentary about this issue and I have come across the following. It is a series of lectures on climate change, skepticism, IPCC and green technologies by a renowned Berkeley Physicist (Richard Muller).

He takes great caution in distinguishing well-known facts with predictions and avoids exaggeration and cherry picking. He rejects/debunks some of the claims made by Al Gore and also debunks several claims made by the deniers. The conclusion (if you don't want to spend 2 hours watching this) is that there is about 90% chance that the globe is getting warmer and that most of it is caused by human activity. I hope we all can agree with this!

Also, I watched the global warming swindle and although it may have some truth in it, it is clear that it is highly biased, one-sided and cherry picked. It not only has several false claims but it seems to have twisted the views of some scientists. Just go through its criticism. You say you are always skeptical about things (which is good), but why do you so readily believe this deniers/skeptics theory? Surely you must be knowing that skepticism is not the same as blindly believing whatever the skeptics say.

I mentioned global dimming as a (potential) counter-evidence for your argument that the temperature rise is only (or mainly) because of solar radiation: It seems that in the last 40 or 50 years the solar radiation reaching earth has not increased but actually decreased because of global dimming and yet the temperature has increased.

Its alright if you look at the arguments of the deniers but please also look at the other side before deciding that a theory held by more than 95% of the experts across the world is fraud/swindle. I found this very informative site today that addresses all the criticisms of the deniers/skeptics, including the one about the rise in Antarctic sea ice, solar radiation, CO2 lag etc.