>>>I guess, this is the point Í I'm trying to tell. some 40-60 years of environmental science and satelites is by far not enough to understand the earths own biology.
>
>Fair enough. However, also I propose the Rule of Reason when faced by conclusions that include assumption: the consideration to start with is - "what if you're wrong?"
>
>IOW sometimes consequence trumps cost or inconvenience. Which is why women tolerate having their breasts squashed and irradiated for screening purposes. And why they will gladly stop doing it when the cost benefit equation shifts, as it always does.

The problem is, that people force their viewpoint through to suggest there is no "assumption", but only fact.

And that is largely not the case: The predictions of the future are build out of assumptions on top of other assumptions. Satellite data suggests there is no global warming for about 18 years now (since 1997). How does that marry up with increased CO2 levels since that time? And why do ground observations suggest there is global warming while NASA satellite data suggest stable temperatures? The -so called- facts of global temperatures do no suggest fact here as the two methods do not yield the same results.

My conclusion, perhaps I will be classified as a conspiracy theorist for this, is that possibly the climate industry has become such a big industry that in order to sustain itself it has to bend the truth a bit and cherry pick data and conclusion to let the world think we have a massive environment problem. What could be a bigger threat to the industry than the outcome that it is build on false assumptions?

I would not be surprised if I'm not that far off.