Ironic opening statement, there. > No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". You talk about "scientific fac

Ironic opening statement, there. > No one has to this day "confirmed" that anthropogenic global warming is a "scientific fact". You talk about "scientific fact" and "proof" like this is mathematics. The best empirical science can do is to gather as much data as possible and arrive at a probability that a conclusion is true given what is known. And what is known is that there is a greater than 99% chance that global warming is anthropogenic: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QE1ZU https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN1QE1ZU (Actual paper is paywalled and if you cared you'd go find it) You're right that our instruments and data have only gotten better over the last 70 years, but studies from the 50s conducted by oil companies already suspected that that global warming was happening and experimentally confirmed that CO2 released by fossils fuels were a likely contributing factor: https://www.slideshare.net/SimoneBoccuccia/cabon-dioxide-echange-between-atmosphere-and-ocean-and-the-question-of-an-increase-of-atmospheric-co2-during-the-past-decades https://www.slideshare.net/SimoneBoccuccia/cabon-dioxide-ech... So much for "revisionist history". But all of that is beside my point about media propaganda, much of which you are simply reciting in your own comment. My point is that the propaganda works, so thank you for taking the time to illustrate that.