oh, my bad. well, i try to get my numbers, or extend my conjecture, from scientists and experts that study climate. obviously, i'm not really the type of guy who wastes much time citing publications, since true data tends not to help change minds. i would be happy to dig a little more if beneficial.
at the end of the day, sure, scientists are paid to research certain things. I'm glad there are some public dollars going to scientists. and sure, some of those scientists may be paid to reach a certain conclusion. Of course, alternative/'green' (notice the quotes) are huge upcoming cash cows and I am not under a vise that a magic bullet is around the corner should we quit burning fossil fuels tomorrow. I would say, scientists paid by these sort of efforts to prove certain facts about C02 is not real science, since one should go where data leads, not lead the data where intended. By extension, i certainly would rather the latter than experts who are clearly teamed with the defendant, ignoring many broad factual assessments by way of inserting cherry picked, often false claims such as 'volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans so lets keep extracting oil'
