It is not a battle of contradicting data, but of interpretation of data.
And you think your “interpretation of data” is superior to thousands of highly trained and skilled professionals who are in total agreement? Either they are all wrong or you are. I’m betting that it’s you.
> ...abuse and smearing by the anti-sceptics.
I don’t know what an “anti-sceptic” is, but I do know that me and many others have little respect for pseudo-sceptic deniers who pollute the conversation.
> You clearly have not read any of the threads and my posts where I have done just that. You should try to do some research before you throw around accusations.
No, I haven’t read all 433 of your posts on this forum. I am simply responding to what you wrote in this thread.
> On what basis do you make that assertion?
What?! You admitted yourself that you refused to listen to this podcast while claiming to be a ‘sceptic’! That’s not scepticism, that’s sticking your fingers in your ears and going, “La la la la la - I can’t hear you!”.
> I have spend several decades in science and research.
So you’ll be aware of something called fallacious argument from authority? Which is distinct from valid argument from authority.
> I have read extensively on AGW. I read all of the threads on this forum.
And I have read the IPCC AR4. I have read numerous papers and articles by climate scientists. Their arguments are compelling, those from the Deniers are not.
> ...a critical element of science includes debate.
Done via the peer reviewed literature - not comment threads on the internet by people who are not qualified to ‘debate’ it. The science is clear: humans are heating up the planet. There is no credible argument against that.
100 aero engineers are stood next to an aeroplane. 97 tell you that it will likely crash after take off. 3 tell you it won’t or that the crash won’t be “too bad”. From your output here it seems you would board the plane. Unfortunately, with climate change, we all get dragged along. Some of us don’t like that so you should expect much more “abuse and smearing” when you deny established science.
P.S. It’s much easier for people to read and respond if you don’t spread your replies over multiple comments.