The BBC has a story up questioning--honestly questioning--whether man-caused global warming skeptics might have a point. The article fairly covers both sides: the skeptics who believe that solar output and ocean temperatures play a greater role than man could dream of; and the humanocentric global warming activists who say that their science is solid and has accounted for natural explanations, and that humans have a greater impact than all natural explanations.
To be honest, I think that the humanocentric global warming "science" is fundamentally flawed by their sincere religious faith that humans are a nasty parasite, not part of the natural biosphere. And Al Gore and George Soros are their high priests. I think that the idea that humans have a greater impact on world-wide climate than solar output or ocean temperatures is arrogant: yes, we do have an effect, but we are not bigger than Nature.
4 hours ago