Are you implying that you are a member of the Royal Society?
EDIT for Zippi62: No, it's not arrogant. The person asking the question made a statement in the first person (later claiming that he didn't know where the quote marks went!!) that was actually spoken by someone else. The asker did NOT cite who was speaking and they are NOT a member of the Royal Society--implying that they were was dishonest. Their other question today is also dishonest, because it plagiarizes a newspaper article, again without citing the source or even mentioning that it was directly quoted.
It is not arrogant to call someone out when they are lying or claiming ideas that aren't theirs. That's one of the differences between you and me--I think that if someone lies and steals it is a bad thing, you're fine with it as long as it agrees with your politics.
The ridiculous thing is that you purport to be a Christian but have no ethical base.
That's science. They study something and come to a conclusion and automatically try and make it law. The problem is that most all of the alarmist scientists are tied politically to governments. That's who pays for everything. If you want to tow-the-line as a scientist and get the things needed to research the things you want to research, you better be politically connected. That's one reason why science is biased in it's research, especially when it comes to influencing Governments funding it.
A classic arrogant answer from pegminer! Pigs don't know that pigs stink!!!
Baccheus - I hate to agree with you most of the time, but you finally exposed the real truth about CO2 and its effects.
From your link : " ... Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas. It occurs naturally, although global warming caused by human activities will indirectly
affect how much is in the atmosphere through, for example, increased
evaporation from oceans and rivers. This will, in turn, cause either cooling
or warming depending on what form the water vapour occurs in, such as
different types of clouds or increased humidity. ... "
This is how "stupid" the science is. Global Warming caused by humans will "indirectly affect" the atmosphere and, in turn, cause either cooling or warming?
This is your idiot science? Global warming causes either cooling or warming? That's the insanity of this whole debate.
Your quote comes from John Pethica in 2010. He was then VP of The Royal Society and leading a process to find wording that all members would agree too. The results are now available. The consensus is still strong, perhaps more clear than ever.
The document that some members had objected to and wanted changed was this one, "Climate Change Controversies", published in 2007.
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_S...
Some members thought the document was too simplistic and too aggressive in its attempts to clarify "misleading arguments" to the point that it could be criticizing legitimate scientists.
The resulting consensus document that came out of the process in 2010 was the Summary of the Science
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_S...
This statement was much more straight-forward. It is emphatic that human activity has added energy to the earth's surface of about 2.9 watts per square meter.
More recently the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Science have published a whole pamphlet and Q/A, "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes"
https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_S...
Again the consensus is very clear. There's plenty of debate around details, rates and certainty of effects but the main points are well established. Human activity is causing a significant build up of energy in the troposphere and ocean. Whether you are more comfortable imagining watts per square meter or atomic bombs per second, it is a significant impactual constant increase in energy.
In short, you are referring to a 4-year-old quote. The process that Pethica was talking about has long been completed. The body of the Royal Society speaks in their past two guides and the consensus is clearly stated and defined. That there is a sizable debate is myth. You can read for yourself.
There's near unanimous consensus.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-...
The division is in the public, and with a few "scientists" that are influenced by money from the fossil fuel industry.
42
In the past we have been able to give advice to governments as a Society without having to seek consensus of all the members.
