Firstly, that was directed at Wild Weasel in rebuttle "I don't give a " comment.
Is that your arguement then ?
Deal with the facts laid out in the Royal Societies Guide and the rational arguments I have put forward.
Otherwise, one can only assume you don't have any valid arguments, and that your are prefering to buy into the conspiracy theories. This is not that different from belonging to a religion or cult where one only accepts evidence that supports their own ideas. Credible evidence against ones position is rejected or ingnored in favour of any evidence no matter how tenuous that bolsters ones world view.
The overall scientific picture and consensus is that mankind has an affect on global warming and that because of this it is sensible to take action.
There are lots of individual errors, human mistakes, people exaggerating the figures. However, that does not negate all the other data and evidence that isn't exaggerated or in error. There is no credible research or evidence that negates the overall picture. One may argue time scales, specific areas that will be affected, the projections of sea currents or what ever one wants, it does not change the fact that there is an agreed affect overal on the environment and earths climate from mankinds activities.
The brightest and best scientists amongst humanity as a whole state that from all the research and understanding man affects global warming.
Blimey why did nobody tell me about my change of mind
you left it this long to reply to try and sort of prove you do have alife, ohhh thats sweet. sorry i didnt read most of your reply, i doubt i would understand it all anyway, far to cerebral for the likes of me, right then back to fox news and where did i put the daily mail, hmmmmm.............
If anyone could provide a reasoned arguement as to a better source of scientific opinion that the Royal Society then and I willing to listen.
As far as I am aware, they recognisably represent the brightest, best minds in science and in general are not politically biased or motivated.
If one were to examine the potential sources of information and analysis on subjects requiring expert opinion, then they should be the prime source.
Ah, you have no valid argument then, guessed as much*
Also, look up the word 'hypocrisy' because your posts have all bar one been insulting 
PS, I was asleep and just woke up and replied to your post, I don't really have a life atm since I am mentally ill and also going cold turkey on an opiate dependancy week 2.
Not that makes a jot of difference to the evidence, logic and reason at hand.
* because rationally there isn't one (unless you can address and fault my reasoning)
plenty of valid arguements thanks very much, heres one the recent climatgate scandal and the suppression of papers that dont agree with the status quo, hows that ? another is the respected physicist outlined in the above article that you dismiss out of hand, heres another recent onehttp://www.suite101.com/content/kiwi-scientists-copy-data-trashing-technique-of-climategate-a230307 i could go on and on and on, but then im not really into long drawn out arguements on the internet, there isnt any point to it.
Those arguments have been addressed in my previous posts.
Please provide a better source of opinion that the Royal Society.
Otherwise, you are in essence stating your own ability to analyse ALL the available evidence for and against is better than theirs.
I am well aware of my own fallabilities and would not dare to presume to be in a better position to give a reasoned argument than the Guide the Royal Society published.
We don't need to get into a debate over minutae, because neither of us rationally or reasonably are qualified to do so.
Either you are dismissing the Royal Society as the best source of information analysis and prefering your own abilities, or you are not.
If you prefer your own analysis, then my earlier statement of "Let's say we obviously come from very different backgrounds and approaches to science, politics and empirical evidence", holds very well.
IE what is it that seperates you from the average conspiracy nut on the internet ? Are the Royal Society actually run by the illuminati ?
Do you see where we might run into a problem of distinguishing validity and reality ?
you havent addressed any of the above arguements....... The royal society base there findings on evidence from the IPCC, who have been proven to be less than honest with the data.
So you know better than the Royal Society that stand by their guidance ?
Okay......
That means that the Royal Society, that has access to all the information you have, that are well aware of the IPCC issues in the past and are still standing by their position are not as clever or informed as yourself.
You are somehow better at being able to identify the flaws and mistakes and evaluate the overall picture ?
You do realise how that looks ?
so you blindly follow them despite the very data that they hinge there findings on being suspect, okay ........... if you put garbage data in you get garbage data out.