You, and many other people in this thread, seem to have looked at the information, made a decision how to interpret it, and adjust your logic to fit whatever your opinion on the issue is. My point was that the issue is complex enough, and has enough unknowns in it, that if twisted the right way you can interperet the information any way you like, but it may not actual be the right interperetation.And?Of course, the same applies to any complex issue (economics, gun control, etc.), where people do not have everything nailed down, and someone is perfectly capable of proving whichever position they want to by twisting the statistics the right way.
It seems a lot of people in this thread (and in general, and on issues besides global warming) want certainty, and look for a simple cause and effect explanation for why something happens, when in many cases (including climate) the issues are complicated enough that neither of these will occur. On global warming, there is no reason that human added greenhouse gases and the Sun (El Ninos, etc.) can't be contributing to a warming. The climate is also complex enough, that being able to confidently predict exactly what will happen is still a ways off. The uncertainty doesn't mean automatically that humans cannot be contributing to warming (Some data argues for it, some against), just that it is not a sure thing, and the uncertainties need to be taken into account when making decisions.