Amicus, it was not a trick question, it was genuine. That you don't like it is in no doubt, your answer (while appreciated) reflects that suspicion.

Yes, you may want to know who they drink with, who they are married to, etc - and if the 'sceptics' can justify a 'Spanish inquisition', so be it.

However, I get the feeling that most 'sceptics' won't be satisfied with anything that a major scientific society or a coalition of National Academies of Science can come up with ... although I would love to be proved wrong.

<< As I've said, it's all about managing perceptions and thus far it has been abysmal on the part of climate science, would you agree? >>

That is a loaded question. There is/has been problems in disseminating the science. Nevertheless, the science is the science - no one can alter that.

I asked re SRES and AR4 because what is not petty, most people are quite prepared to refute something that they haven't even read, let alone understood - they even confuse the two, no joke.

Qanda
I am not clear what you are saying, and not sure whether you are arguing as warmist or skeptic.

I was responding to this: “What evidence would it take for you to accept the alternative?

i.e. it is very likely that human activity is significantly contributing to the climate change we are experiencing now.”

I thought you were a warmist asking what evidence someone would require before they believe the warmist orthodoxy. If I was mistaken, I’m sorry.

rpg
"bushbasher,of course we have a choice, the choice not to make stupid decisions."

Who's "we"? You speak for everyone in the world including those who disagree with you do you?

Go ahead: answer the question. No other warmist ever has. Who's "we"?

peter hume "Who's "we"? You speak for everyone in the world including those who disagree with you do you?"

Yes, everyone is included in my "we",

as in "we, the people, everyone included, do not HAVE to make stupid decisions" "We" do not have to attempt to stop the climate changing, what a folly, that would be stupid.

Just as many people say "WE HAVE TO ACT NOW OR BECAUSE OF AGW THERE WILL BE xxxxxxxx"(insert favorite disaster here, what's his name can put his latest one, MASS EXTINCTION)

Who is that "we" referring to? The same inclusive, "we", obviously, when people say that, I'm not offended that they include people who may disagree with them, it's not an unusual grammatical term, is it?

What's your problem with a pronoun?

"Go ahead: answer the question. No other warmist ever has. Who's "we"?"

I'm surprised you think it's such a big challenge that no warmist has answered it, well then again, I'm not a warmist, I'm skeptical of AGW (just for the record)

It's a figure of speech.

it's a figure of speech, and a silly answer.

you cannot choose to not make stupid decisions. you can only choose to make decisions as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence.

bushbasher, what rubbish - if you weigh up the options and one of them is stupid, then to follow that line is to make a "stupid decision"

people make stupid decisions all the time e.g. "I'm OK, I've only had a couple of drinks" .. stupid decision, would you agree?

Or do we follow your line of thought that this is a good decision made "as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence" ..?

"you cannot choose to not make stupid decisions. you can only choose to make decisions as rationally as possible upon the best available evidence." your double negative is "silly", your line of logic is "silly"

People are people, they make dumb and stupid decisions .. mine was to engage with fools who want to argue about pronouns and the logic of decision making (i.e. that there are no stupid decisions), I admit it and will now desist.