"LWG" wrote:

Just 20+ years ago Newsweek was running stories about the impending Ice
Age which was upon us. The worry was Global Cooling. The "scientists"
read the same archival data and came to the conclusion that the Earth was
cooling at an alarming rate.

Magazines such as Newsweek are in the business of pumping up subscriptions
to sell ad copy. What they said 20 years ago--or yesterday--has nothing to
do with scientific consensus.

Where I sit was once a jungle. It also was once covered by thousands of
feet of ice. Isn't it just a bit presumptuous for us to think, "Ok, *I'm*
here now, so all you little natural processes can just stop." Why should
we expect that the temperatures today are the same as yesterday? "It's a
right!." "I'll sue!" "We'll see what the ACLU has to say about this!"

What's all that got to do with science?

What about the measurements that show the sun is hotter the past few years
than it was before?

A red herring used by ideologues.

The OP's comment about money is right on. There's plenty of money out
there for those who read the tea leaves to see "global warming," with
extra bonus points if my SUV is responsible. There is nothing for someone
who argues that there is no warming, or that other natural processes are
responsible.

Then why do energy industries lobby so hard for those ideas and against
massive scientific consensus against them?

The discourse has been so poluted by ideology and money that I think the
science is almost worthless.

In the popular media, yes. Real science is much drier and harder to
understand, so most people don't bother with it.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.