Quote:
|
The issues in question in my mind are based on the questions that logically follow the above points. And that is what I find confusing relative to "consensus" and wonder why the follow-up questions are met with such disdain.
|
The reason for the disdain has been explained to you in this thread ad infinitum already, and has to do with your unwillingness to take any intellectual responsibility for your strong and absolutely unwavering opinions.
It’s really simple: you either understand enough science to have an informed opinion on the subject, or you don’t. If you don’t then you need to have the intellectual integrity to admit it. If you do then you need to have the intellectual integrity to state your position and defend it.
You’ve done neither. And when anybody points it out, you accuse them of name-calling. Therefore it appears that you are not ready yet to have a responsible discussion on this subject.
If you want to understand what I mean about intellectual integrity, read the full IPCC report from the Third Assessment. You'll see that every point is stated explicitly and quantitatively, and defended in full, exhaustive scientific detail with reference to data sources, method of analysis, and assumptions. The logic is absolutely transparent. It's a tour de force.
If you are being honest here and genuinely want to learn about climate change, there really is no better way to do so than reading that report.