thats laughable.
Well you shouldn't. They're a disgrace to the people who founded them.
Let's say we obviously come from very different backgrounds and approaches to science, politics and empirical evidence.
I am not sure why I should value your opinions on the science as say compared to that of the President of the Royal Society, Martin Rees, who I don't think many people consider laughable or a disgrace.... but each to their own conspiracy theory fantasy world 
.... which ofc I noticed envolved talking about the lefties in america and comments through out these forums that mark you clearly in the Fox News demographics. (even worse than daily mail readers tbh )
You believe what you want to believe. I really don't give a ****.
well thats interesting as i am degree educated in a science, but dont let that hold you back from sticking labels on people you dont know and throwing about some insults for good measure, nice.
You are the one quoting my comment as laughable, which quite frankly is pretty ridiculous considering the sheer percentage of scientists on the none skeptic side of climate science.
You quoted one article about one american physicist.
He does not represent the massive consensus of opinion, he represents an incredibly small number of skeptics that is massively over popularised by the media, especially by the likes of Fox News and similar outlets.....
..... or do you deny this ?
(which would make my initial conclusion pretty valid in my own person opinion)
The other comments were mainly aimed at wild weasle since he regularly establishes his right wing credentials.
well there you have it, you won me over there........ i believe 
I am not interested in winning people over, I am neither a politician nor am I trying to sell you double glazing or a new car.
I am merely pointing out that:
a) the Royal Society published guides to understanding the climate debate and the levels of consenus of opinion.
Which I would say is the most trustable source currently available worldwide as least likely to be political, most likely to adhere to scientific principles.
b) That the majority of climate skeptisim comes from the Fossil Fuel industry and the right wing orthodox christian movements and the media they support and are supported by in the US.
c) That there are large numbers of well respected scientists from world respected accademies and institutions with no political or finanical motivation who support the general evidence of climate change and they form the general scientific consensus.
d) that several of the highest profile skeptic scientists have been shown to be in the pay of the fossil fuel industry.
e) that there are very few serious and respected scientists that are skeptics and NOT embroiled in scandals with politics and industry money.
f) that went put in context next to the above, one scientist have a rant over other scientists jumping on a gravey train and human errors do not detract from the fact that the consenus and therefore the sensible position is on the side of climate change unless you are an expert specialising in climate change and hold a skeptical view based on your own qualified analysis to be even remotely able to rock the boat.
These are demonstrable facts would you agree ?
The Royal Society's Simple Guide to Climate change controversies
Too busy watching Fox News ? 
The difference is that I don't believe what I want to believe unlike yourself.
I use a set of guidlines and principles that provide me with answers whether I like what that answer is or not. It is totally devoid of my will, empathy, passions, fears or hopes. It is simply a combination of following scientific principles, reason and logic and the consensus of opinion of those experts qualified to provide the best answers available using those techniques at any given moment in time.
To choose to believe otherwise, if not an qualified expert using reasonable skeptism is irrational.
You may as well argue against the current consenus of opinion on quantum mechanics or quantum gravity.
To attempt an opinion based not on the current consensus without being a theoretical physicist is completely insane. It's delusional egotism to convince oneself that we could possibly have a greater understanding than that of the experts in the field.
One clever man says the tomorrow it will be sunny, a thousand clever men say it is most likely to rain. All other things being equal, logic and reason says take an umbrella.
That is not opinion, favouritism, fashion, choice or belief. It just is, simple, reason.
busy watching fox news ? no i actualy have a life away from a computer, fancy that...more insults eh, lovely.