|
1) You wrote that "There is very little responsible science that supports global warming." I cited multiple articles showing that the overwhelming consensus in the community is precisely the opposite. Those kinds of statements get tossed around often, and they're utterly false and irresponsible.
2) The hypothesis that the sun could have gotten hotter is worth exploring, as the Stanford site mentions. But there isn't evidence that it has, and even some turns up, it's trumped if that sunlight doesn't strike the Earth due to being scattered in the upper atmosphere. The fact that meterological stations around the world are measuring warming at the same time they measure decreasing sunlight is troubling. (The Science study I cite acquired data from a huge number of international locations.)
3) There is an unequal volume of good and junk science on both sides of the issue. You might be able to find an article in primary literature claiming that global warming is imaginary, though I couldn't. (Neither could the UN group studying the literature.) But there is overwhelming consensus by every major research organization that warming is real, human-caused, and significant. It's why I cited a review of studies, rather than any one study, and why I took my information from the most widely-read and most respected sources. You can certainly find political sources which will claim just about anything, but the scientific literature is remarkably uniform on this.
4) Not all theories are equal. For example, there's a group that has been publishing their theories on "cold" (room-temperature) fusion for at least two decades. Thing is, they've never produced any results, so people ignore them and go back to thinking about fission or wind or geothermal or some other form of energy harvesting. The "sun is warmer" theory is more or less conjecture at this point, and it has an uphill battle because significant evidence exists which suggests the opposite is true vis-a-vis impact on Earth.
|