Quote Originally Posted by Egg Nog
The amount of CO2 in the air has nothing to do with air quality.

Why should thousands of scientists be labelled biased? Well, maybe because many are biased. Many are on corporate payrolls, but that's a minor issue. I hate getting political and bureaucratic about this type of thing. You know how you make up your mind scientifically? You take a look at all the evidence and make a best guess. If you look up the opposition to climate change (on wikipedia even), you'll see that their points don't say "climate change is not being caused by humans" - they just point out known limitations of science, such as cloud physics models in computer weather simulations. These don't contradict anything. This is in fact the same reason why nobody claims to be 100% sure about anything.

The fact is that nothing is 100%. One very small side of the debate has possible bias and few things to say, and the other very large side has masses of information and no possible personal agendas. One side is extremely likely to be correct and has greater means of proving it, and the other side attempts to point out possible hinderances without condradicting much. It's up to you who to believe. Look at who's saying what, and look at the odds.
You should look at this it's pretty interesting:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm