Global warming: is it bollocks?

'Experiments in natural science show that one-sided observations, those that take no account of the multiplicity of factors determining certain processes in the geo-system, lead to unwarranted simplifications and wrong conclusions when trying to explain natural phenomena. Thus, politicians who rely on incomplete data may take wrong decisions. It makes room for politically correct lobbying, especially on the side of business marketing of exceptionally expensive, so called eco-friendly, energy technologies or those offering CO2 storage (sequestration) in exploited deposits. It has little to do with what is objective in nature. Taking radical and expensive economic measures aiming at implementing the emission only of few greenhouse gases, with no multi-sided research into climate change, may turn out counterproductive.'

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html

It is not widely known that at the beginning of the 20th century, large numbers of scientists were convinced that cranium size and shape determined intelligence, and that the white northern races had skulls with more brain in them than southern black skulls. Then, as scientific knowledge advanced, as 'multi-sided research' was performed, it was realised that skull shape had no determining influence on brain size nor intelligence. Obviously, scientists don't bring this up much, as it makes them look awful. Scientists can get caught up in a frenzied way, like the rest of humanity does, and lose their objectivity. They have over 'global warming', and so far, seem resistant to calming down and being scientists again.

We're waiting.