To reopen debate about credibility of scientific community with Patrick Henry

Having read your previous debate and this one thus far, I'm fairly certain you've been mislead. You have been lead to believe there are major objections to the basic idea of global warming and statements as to the effects and predictions thereof are thusly biased. This is incorrect. No scientist has, within a peer reviewed context, shown any mechanisms natural or otherwise which could be capable of explaining the current warming trend we are seeing today. Heat-island effect, Earth's dynamic motion, sun spot effects, nor any of the other suggested causes has fleshed out a dynamic understanding of the temperature rise we are seeing today. In the 1950s due to our understanding of the well understood chemical and physical properties of gases it was realized that a large amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere would cause the planet to heat up due to the green house effect. This has been well known for a long period of time and the predictions are coming true as shown by the current heating trend (which is far worse than the initial predictions suggested). We are discovering new mechanisms for how and why glacial ice melts at the rate it does. How increased heat helps feed hurricanes and storms. And we are predicting heating trends which to date have be significantly underestimate of what we are witnessing today. I do wonder which step you doubt: 1) CO2 are a greenhouse gas. This is confirmed by physics. 2) We are releasing massive amounts of CO2. 3) From 1 and 2, we predict CO2 will cause warming. 4) There is a warming trend which fits with this prediction. There is a remarkable amount of evidence behind Global Warming. To suggest that it is indeed accurate does not detract from scientists credibility. A review of the actual evidence in favor of Global Warming shows that it's remarkably robust and scientists are right to believe it. Most politicians, new media, and environmental activists get their evidence, data, and predictions from the scientists in question. When I say that Global Warming is indeed occurring, I can clearly cite a vast number of scientific papers to this regard. As for the claims of junk science, I cannot speak to others but I do not use it as a pejorative. However, the arguments you cited are, in fact junk science. Calling something Junk Science isn't saying that they are wrong, or that they are attempting to mislead, or that they are lying. Junk science simply makes premature causal claims without sufficient evidence. It's a little bit of science and making leaps which the data doesn't allow. Junk science isn't plainly false, rather it's a conclusion without due diligence. It may be true that there are cycles of sun spots every X number of years and that these sun spots could in fact lead to some increased heating. However the conclusion that it has lead to the current heating trend we are seeing today is unsupported. There's certainly some science to sunspots. And you can have that science peer reviewed and found to suffice. However, the jump from sun spots to an explanation of the climate shift we've been witnessing would have to stretch itself to become tenuous. Yes, there are some people who disagree. As far as the 400 disagreeing scientists I refer you to similar efforts by creationists against evolution (AiG has a couple hundred names of medical doctors/dentists/teachers), or similar responses such as project Steve (800+ scientists named Steve who support the teaching of evolution). The references to authority are moot. Do they have any peer reviewed mechanism which explains the warming trend we are seeing? Are they exposing some great underlying mistake made by the very basic math and physics which suggests that due to the greenhouse effect we should be seeing this warming?