Is it settled or its not settled? I'm confused.
Settled when it suits you, but not settled when it doesn't?
Its settled on the basics, like CO2 traps IR and causes "some" rising"?
But not settled as to how much? And if this is bad in any way...?
You are a scaremonger and intellectually dishonest. You will rationalize anything that confirms your bias. You are so full of it, its staggering.
You believe your own lies, or the lies of others, I'm not sure which is worst.
The IPCC is not credible and has not been credible EVER. The studies that use, most of the time are. However they cherry pick those that suit them and the reports are written, not by experts, but recent graduates, civil servants and sometimes people who just have no credentials worth mentioning whatsoever. People need to stop equating the IPCC and those who write the reports with the actual scientists publishing papers. THEY ARENT THE SAME.
The Stern Review is a hit piece and a bad one. So full of bad information its completely worthless. Its claims dont even fit with the IPCC reports in many cases.
Its easy to sit smug and morally supperior, as youd like to think you are on the "righteous" side of things and have 97% of scientists behind you. But you side keeps talking agaisnt media and the politicians, when that is ALL you guys have. PR, spin doctoring, politics and the main stream media.
The science is NOT on your side, unless its manipulated or cherry picked.
I'm done with you. You have fallen into the cool aid bucket.