BB: My opinion.

I don't want to sound like I am flip flopping but I believe there is a degree or so of global warming and it "may" have been be caused by man.

However it has been over hyped to the point that people are polarized over the issue.

One group is the saviors that feel they are justified in fudging the numbers to bring action before it is too late:
"Dr Murari Lal, the scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders."

Another group has profit as their motive. Al Gore, Pachauri and some others stand to make billions off of the efforts to reverse global warming. They may actually believe in it.

Others are on the bandwagon with them. They believe they are the vanguard of humankind and must save the non believers from themselves.

Some countries want reparations from the industrial countries for causing global warming that they claim threaten them.

Then there are the actual non believers who are enraged and feel they must push back against what they believe to be a scam. Some of them might have a profit motive by gathering anti-warming followers and telling them what they want to hear.

I am sort of neutral but I believe people need to know the truth, not some PR campaign.

I am skeptical that mankind can reverse whatever global warming there is. Even if it could be reversed, we are doomed anyway because the problem is more and more people using more and more energy which is creating more and more heat, regardless of the efficiency and cleanliness of the energy source. The world is going to heat up anyway due to heat pollution. Energy=heat.

I attempt to point out and make people aware of the inconsistencies in the alarmist's evidence. I could probably poke some holes in the skeptics evidence but it is the alarmist's "evidence" that is constantly thrust in my face.

There are actually people trying to figure out how to make a giant solar shade in space to shield us from the Sun. Who is going to have control over that?

I am all for solar, wing, hydro, nuclear energy, anything that does not pollute. pollution is bad. I am not sure that carbon capture is workable like gasohol. Gasohol was a feel good idea that consumes more fossil fuel that it produces. A net loss. A boon doggle. They are destroying the rain forest in Brazil to make room for more soybean production for biodiesel to save the atmosphere.

I believe oil and natural gas should be used as a bridge to green power sources.

I am not calling anybody stupid or mean. People are entitled to their own opinion just as I am entitled to my opinion.

Just examine all the information from both sides in order to form an opinion.

Seems to me it is about money and power more than anything else.