What I have posted is verbatim, from people more knowledgeable than either you or I.
I don't suffer from delusions of comprehension any more than you do. Merely read evidence, and try to understand, as I would hope every thinking person does. I try not to have my viewpoint determined by newspaper simplifications, or by United Nations political positioning.
Wrt your most recent post, I see that you are suffering from "IPPC disease" - i.e. claiming victory pre-emptively and attempting to stifle debate. Unfortunately for you, the evidence (such as it is) seems to no longer support your position.
You claim no peer review of the scientific views opposing your own, but it seems to me you haven't bothered to acquaint yourself with what is available.
You ridicule Don Aitken's dispassionate review of what is really known, versus what is promulgated, you make no comment on Lord Monckton's scientific refutation of some foundational IPPC data, you ignore the 60 Canadian Scientists disputing their own Governmental approach to AGW, you avoid dealing with the information arising from the recent 600 delegates to the Global Warming sceptics conference - and then claim victory!!!! Beggars belief.
I see from your post, that you are impressed by presitigious institutions. Good for you. Not sure whether you have read A Short History of Almost Everything, by Bill Bryson - but I would recommend it, to help you get over being impressed by Institutions. A very large body of scientific advances throughout history have been ignored or rejected by the most prestigious Institutions for years, before grudging acceptance under the weight of evidence.
Wrt AGW, I am sceptical, but open to being convinced. I would expect the convincing would be fact based, rather than political witch hunting that resorts to name calling of people whose views are different.
Good luck, and I look forward to both of us understanding the issues better at a future time.
