I will never understand people who think things are black or white. "All in or no one in" is a very childish way to think about a global issue, especially a scientific one. All theories are subject to review and change. This is not a good reason to ignore them. Newtonian gravity has flaws, imagine ignoring it because it fails at the quantum level?
Again, black and white. No mate, this just isn't how science is done. See the example of Newtonian gravity above.
Debate can be political, but science is not done by debating. Editorials are not part of peer review. Ridicule is perfectly acceptable in any forum where a person is attempting to equate their understanding of science with that of the experts. If you stick your neck out expect it to get chopped off. Ridicule has no place in peer review or academic sources but I don't think PRE is a journal of note. So if people are going to say daft things online, I reckon they are fair game.
Newton makes the point I was trying to make: the science seemed settled till new data came along. Climate science is very complex and there are more areas of poor understanding than you can poke a stick at. I like to hear all points of view. The 3% may be correct and the 97% incorrect. Still my thoughts on cc are more positive on trying to mitigate our emissions than they were. I’m for an emissions trading scheme.
Is international politics childish? Who’d a thunk it? Some countries get to pollute and others don’t?? How does this stop CO2 pollution? It’s pure socialism. And like socialism it doesn’t work.
As for ridicule it rates just above sarcasm as the refuge of the scoundrel. The most boring posts on this board are two posters slinging mud at one another. But it is tempting sometimes.