|
Those points have been addressed in earlier posts.
There is still debate over the exact levels of affects, but that man has affected climate change is the consenus of opinion, your own post links to an article showing even many skeptics agreeing to this.
The arguments are not as you present them to be.
There is dissent, but it is in the style of presentation and the over simplification for example. There is upset at the way members have phrased comments and positions.
I understand the conflict, it is much like the debate on religion and belief. To be purely scientific one must take an agnostic approach, but it it is insulting to anyones intelligence to have to listen to someone use that honesty to miss represent position of say creationism.
I know about imaginary numbers, but I also know enough not stupidly contradict the statement that under normal circumstances there are no negative squares when discussing it with non mathematicians for practical purposes.
The arguements are mainly over such trivialities, yet you seem to be trying to take that out of context and use it to dismiss climate change and the reasonable assumption of mans affect upon it.
It still does not qualify any individual to assume they know better, especially someone posting on an internet forum.
That you know better than the Royal Society on any matter of scientific consensus is plain and simply silly.
It matters not what articles, blogs or anything else says. |
|