Yes, but my assumptions are also backed up by enormous amounts of analysis of empirical evidence.
That is where the big difference comes in.... Claim something is incorrect all you want, that is fine - I have no issues with dissenting opinions... but without the presence of evidence to support your claim, it will not be a scientifically respected opinion.
The real problem is the facts are shoehorned into the "analysis" to fit the assumptions rather than letting the facts speak for themselves. Hence the problem with "global warming" being political.
Let's see some facts (not some scientist's biased assumption) like:
1. How much does CO2 contribute to warming compared to other factors like sun activity.
2. Of the CO2 increase, how much can be attributed man made causes?
The analysis would be more objective if they didn't already start with the assumption that man contributes CO2, and is therefore responsible for global warming.
It's funny how the earth can warm up all by itself (medieval warming period), and they will dismiss that with, "oh, that's attributible to sun activity", but nowadays, "well it's definitely man made."
Right.
Let's see some real science that draws conclusions from facts rather than interpreting the facts to fit their already decided theory.