Global warming itself is such an emotional issue. The facts are altered and pushed by scientists, politicians who have differing interests. Scientists gain funding by proving their theories are correct, and the likes of Al Gore get rich, because of their commercial interests. These interests need to be understood before taking any side of the issue seriously. This is what makes this such a massive debate.
Because of these emotions, if you claim to be a climate change skeptic, (multiple factors could be possible for making the planet warmer), you are thought to be unreasonable/selfish and are putting future generations at risk. And when these emotions are raised, the facts become less important.
Lets don't forget the climate modelling are theories, several of which have been proved incorrect ie. hockeystick, and recently the measuring of water vapour in the upper atmosphere by NASA, which actually went against previous theories.
I guess my point (if I have one), is that people have to look deeper, starting from, who is producing the opinions/theories/facts and what interests they have in myself believing one way or the other.
*And when reporters/news agencies start generating the news, eg. Earth hour, I believe that reporters are going outside the realms of what they are employed to do. Report news, not make it.*
