The degree to which man is responsible for global warming.
I'll tell you my honest opinion, just based on nothing but my own feelings. Climate change proponents, the true zealots, use climate change as the basis for the green movement. It started with cleaning up pollution and changing behavior. It caught traction and the tree hugging hippies got a little power and are milking it to the enth degree.
As I said, I'm in the middle. I think we should be environmentally conscious. As an outdoorsman and semiprofessional saltwater angler it infuriates me to see trash in nature. I support and donate to various local initiatives aimed at cleaning up trash and what not from the bay and coastal areas. I was glad to see us leave the Paris accords though because I felt that was a money/power grab and a usurption of US power to a global governing body. We can still do what we pledged to do without throwing money to fledgling ******** nations.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...uman-contribution-to-gw-faq.html#.WVMgIYUpCEc
Despite how often I disagree with your opinions, attitudes, and political ideology, I think you're a solid thinker and a pretty well rounded individual. The above link is to an article that attempts to identify the reasons that climate change is attributed to man's activities. In which the main focus is on climate modeling using natural factors as the driving forces for temperature rise. They all failed to mirror the current level of rise that we see. I point to this as relevant due to the constant bombardment of climate model inaccuracy as the biggest indicator of skepticism for those who do not believe in manmade climate change.
Of course there are many other points made in the article, and each of these points are disputed by skeptic "science". For each of these attempts to refute the scientific evidence there is a scientific explaination that denies that attempt's validity. Outside of the lies, of course.
Yet these illegitimate attempts are plastered over rightwing websites, and perpetually recycled by knowing and unknowing foot soldiers in the attempt to defend business against the changes that must be made immediately.
There are some legitimate questions. Most of which are why the climates models have not been accurate (in all cases, some have been very accurate despite the claims). Scientists are exploring those discrepancies in an attempt to better understand a complex science. A study doing exactly that was used by rightwing websites as an example of how "top scientists agree that global warming has stopped for the last 20 years", the truth is however the study did no such thing. Paxxx claims that 28 of the authors said this but were silenced by two authors. I've searched for this denial and accusation of fraud (cause that's what the claim is) and found nothing (not on rightwing websites). Instead I have found articles and work written by many of the 28 authors reiterating the main points of 1: the climate is warming and 2: the change is caused by man.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...ep/17/global-warming-fingerprints-santer-2013
There are many things that deserve true discussion. How to combat this......what urgency do we need to take.....do we partner with other nations.....what extent will change come.....if tech can reverse the trend.....what can the market do without intervention.....how do we best prevent people and families from being economically destroyed by actions to reverse the trend
But attacking the science that exists in fact by sighting inaccurate models and conspiracy theories is just ridiculous at this point.