"Many of the current ideas surrounding global warming are based on one particular theory regarding CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Computer models to predict future trends are based on that idea. But what if that idea is wrong? The available data suggests that CO2 is not directly responsible for mean temperatures and is part of a natural cycle. Or is that politically incorrect?"
1. But what if it's correct? What do we gain by leaving things as they are? What do we lose by trying to change? Money, i.e., our taxes? Well, cut out corporate welfare.
2. "Suggests"? Same argument as your adversaries.
3. "Not"? Politically correct.
"Or is that politically incorrect?" Nice try, but no points.
I don't like to argue by analogy, but, try this: 1>Because of over fishing, cod at the Grand Banks have practically disappeared. 2> Because of faulty farming methods, the American prairie was turned into a Dust Bowl. 3>Once NYC's harbour was awash with oysters, stripped bass and sturgeon, but, .... Part of a 'natural cycle'?
A million kids a year die from cooking smoke. I never put gunk on my unruly hair. All I had to do was walk down the street and let the exhaust fumes do their work.
Personally, I've no idea as to which side is correct but, I do know that those who deny are funded by those who profit from this pollution. Well, that is if one admits that it is pollution. CO2 is good for trees.