OK
So what's your basis for concluding "it might be dangerous but probably isn't", and apparently therefore dismissing the reported finding of 70 years of developed climate science? As you say, this is science, not religion.
So far All I can recall from you on that is a pretty loose comment along the lines of models are always wrong (correct me if that needs further elucidation from you) .
Is that the basis of your belief that "it might be dangerous, but probably isn't" What other grounds do you have for your disbelief in the climate science reported findings?
----
ps I have and continue to use the word "believe", if that was what you objected to, with your "this is science not religion comment", because I consider that most of us have not studied all the scientific literature and evidence on anthropomorphic climate change, to form a comprehensive view based on that full body of work. So there is indeed an element of belief involved, in a totally different sense from religion.
believe: defn
"to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something,
although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so "
