Sure. The debate isn't about whether climate change is happening or not, and anyone who says otherwise is being disingenuous and you should probably question them further. It's a strawman developed so people don't need to address the actual arguments put forward. I'm going to quote myself because I cbf typing it out again:
"The issues include 1) how much we're responsible for, 2) when will these changes manifest themselves, 3) is said impact going to be beneficial or negative, and 4) are there changes we can make now to minimise said impact and reduce the magnitude/costs of said impact; and 5) do those changes compare favourably economically to the cost of adapting to the impact."
Question for you Huge - did you read the PDF I linked to where a professor of physics attempted to submit a comment to a journal correcting some clearly erroneous science? Just wondering.How is it an attack? It's a challenge to him to present his arguments and theories to those best able to judge them. Let him present his evidence, let him contradict the specialists in the climate sciences, let him prove that they are prideful and let him show how they've all missed what he has seen.
THEN let him come back and explain it all in layman terms to those of us who readily agree that we are not qualified in the topic. Do all that FIRST and establish his credibility and reputation and then I'll accept he was right and the greatest minds got it all wrong.
Till then though I'll trust in the scientific community. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what I think so I don't know why you're interested.
I have never once claimed I can see anything that "the climate scientists" can't. Your continued claims of this frankly make you look rather petty. No, I'm not a published scientist - so what? The thread is about the merits or otherwise of climate change. I believe that I've presented some pretty compelling evidence/arguments about a couple of topics that may get some people considering what they're being told. I don't need to be a published scientist to refer to scientific studies which ARE published. I don't need to be a published scientist to bring some of the uncertainties to people's attention - besides, as an engineering scientist, I'm probably better qualified than most to understand the actual science behind the statements, would you agree?
The media look for the simple, dramatic headlines. I can categorically say that in EVERY case I have ever investigated on the topic, the media report/s dramatise the actual paper almost beyond recognition. In EVERY case, the actual scientific paper is couched in so many doubts, so much uncertainty, so many "maybe"s and "possibly"s, which rarely - if ever - reach the news stories. But anyone who never looks into it, will never know those things.
Another question which is pertinent - are you trusting of the media in general? Do you believe what they tell you?