[Epistemologist]

To be brief, I think that if global warming is a bona fide problem, then steps should be taken to solve it.

However, the possibly pseudo-scientific evidence that supports it is often laced with bias. When I say bias, I mean statistical bias in the methods of data collection, data analysis, and hypothesis testing. I mean, there are so many so-called experiments and studies on the same topic that are overly confident on conclusions that contradict each other. Of course, they realize that there are margins of errors, but if an experiment is replicated, then how can it be that different results occur when different people perform them? That's absurd.

As for global warming, I am somewhat convinced that yes, it is there. And yes, I think that steps should be taken to solve it and curb pollution. But we ought to ignore extremists who use confounded statistical analyses to support their political agendas as the previous poster alluded to. I don't like dishonest people.