Matt, people's biggest problem is understanding the difference between when an individual has a 'theory' based on intuition that sounds agreeable to those with a vested interest in that view.


a Scientific Theory from a community of qualified in the feild, that is established over the test of time, challenged from every conceivable angle, and withstood the scrutany of sceptics.

see, everyone mistakes the word 'theory' to mean 'opinion', so people with non-qualified, adhoc or emotion-based opinions with agenda try to mis-use the word 'theory' to propetuate this confusion and demote what the real Theories had to go thru to become scientifically accepted Theories.

classic example was the politically and emotionally charged 'intelligent design' debate.

same thing with global warming. It cost money, lots of money for companies to change...especially utility and fuel companies. Spending a small fortune to prevent or at the least, cast doubt on the perceived need to change is very much worth it to them. It's much much harder and expensive to buy out a whole scientific community than it is to buy individual government officials with power.

The fact that the world is moving ahead and trying to do something, while the US is still keeping the issue up for debate and fuel/utility companies are reporting record profits, should tell us something as to how corrupt the US government has been progressively getting.

people who have republican loyalties based on whatever things they think their party represent, have falling for the scam hook-line and sinker.

"well, global warming is just a 'theory' anyhow."

yeah, ok, 'just' a lets keep burning more of the earth and putting it in the air and see what happens. Then, when the 'theory' becomes a naked eye observable fact, we can attribute it to something else....just like how people develop skill and LATER they attribute it to using 'Chi'.