But let me ask you about 3 questions.
1. Do you think the concept of significant man made global warming is more complex that predicting the effect of the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, on the surronding area?
2. Do you think "ceditable" scientists got it wrong in their conclusions?
3. If your answer is "yes" to the 2 above questions, how can one be so sure of the conclusions drawn on either side?