Or you can actually read what I say instead of telling me what my position is in the matter. I explained my position throughly, regardless if you think it's bright or not.

As for "off the hook." Look at it this way. A few post ago you said what you write is just words, your opinion only. A defense if I was saying that your opinion is worthless if or when your stance is corrected. I haven't said your opinion is worthless, I just maintain that the position on climate change is wrong. You seem to want to be off the hook more then me. As far as I'm concerned what I say matters. What you say and believe should matter too. Not just "it's my opinion and shouldn't be challenged."

Don't make this personal Belly. Don't try to screwball the whole thing to who's the brightest pissing competition. Or to more direct insults.

I think we should invest in solutions to enviornmental issues. I don't think we should scrap everything that still works while finding out if other energy sources work as well. I think pollution (including emissions), waste management, and water are the greatest concerns we have concerning the environment world wide. After that it's directed to frequent local issues. Fire seasons, tornado seasons, hurricane seasons, earthquakes, floods, or any other real emergency that is common in certian locations. Focus our energies in those and there will be direct practical results. Unlike the vague climate scares and fear based policies that try to get other countries and your own to destabilize industries and economies. I've given one view that is about a potential solution instead of politics on climate change.

You can't be this dense to keep missing the mark on what I'm saying. If you are, don't tell me. I'd rather not know.

NOT NOW SOON
"Don't take this any more personally then it needs to be. This is not aimed at you."
Don't patronise me and try to Bulverise me! That's a logical fallacy that tries to psychoanalyse WHY I'm wrong rather than prove THAT I'm wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

"But there is no reliability when it comes to climate sciences and global warming scares."
Again, link to a specific study that you think demonstrates the inconsistency! I've answered your gish gallop above on the "Ice Age" scare in the 1970's. If anytihng there was a global WARMING scare in the actual SCIENCE. This scare even filtered down into the culture - see movies like Soylent Green for example. Indeed, check this little movie out from the 1958 Bell Telephone Company "Science Hour" shows. (2 minutes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s Inconsistent? I don't think so, and that was over 60 years ago!
As for population control - SHOW ME THE SCIENCE! Stop asserting your own perceptions of the whole 'environmental movement' and people like Paul Ehrlich and start quoting real climate authorities or I'm just going to shout RUBBISH ever time you do.
I personally am quite optimistic about it, and think civilisation will survive EVEN IF we ignore the climate warnings. My main concern as an environmentalist is the many tipping points in natural ecosystems that could wipe out whole non-sentient species. But we'll make sure Australia survives, even in 200 years most of us are living underground in something that looks like a Mad Max desert hellhole.

Basically, you don't get to be that trite. That childish. It's time to man up and justify your assertions that climate science is 'unreliable', because anything else is hot wind.

Once again NOT NOW SOON,
here are the physics. Are you saying you disagree with something you can see with you own eyes in these videos?

In the 1820's, a quarter century before the Communist Manifesto was published, Joseph Fourier discovered something in the atmosphere traps the suns heat.

In 1856 Eunice Foote discovered CO2 traps heat very effectively.
John Tyndall confirmed it in 1859.

The power of CO2 as a heat trapper can be tested in any decent physics lab on the planet. Trap some CO2, shine various wavelengths of energy through it, and see what "shadows" form on the other side. The shadows indicate what wavelengths didn't make it and were redirected by the gases.

Even simple thermal cameras can confirm it. Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! (1 minute) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

It's SUCH basic physics that even Mythbusters could set up a backyard test that demonstrated how CO2 traps heat. (3 minutes) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

It's in physics textbooks over a century old.

Warnings to the public started over 60 years ago - and I repeat the link to this important 1958 Bell Telephone Company "Science Hour" movie, as it shows AL GORE or some other modern climate activist didn't invent it! (2 minutes). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-AXBbuDxRY&t=4s

Telling you to not take it personally when you clearly are taking it personally is a fallacy? I'll put it a different way then. Calm your ass down. I thought the way I said it before was polite.

The science is unreliable because the predictions are unreliable. I gave the link to news stories, not for cooling scares, but because the warming scares never panned out as they were predicted. If the scientists don't agree with the news articles that are reported on global warming, then that's their problem on setting the record straight. Every climate model I've seen has a dramatic spike in temperatures after a few years. Every single one of those after the years have gone by was wrong. A few years later the same model shows up with the years moved to line up with the current date. We are a few degrees warmer some years, not a exponential 15-30 degrees hotter each year. Possibly there's a slight trend that favors getting warmer instead of having a few warmer years and a few cooler years. That's giving the scientist the benefit of the doubt. Not something I intend to do too often in climate sciences.

You asked for sources outside of my own observations. Here's some links. Look at them if you want. Or don't. I don't care any more. Your bickering over everything said grows tiring. Especially if you want a fallacy free conversation while at the same time engaging in patronizing remarks to "simplify the matter" for the dumb denialist . (You did do this at Mr. O's request. Don't start getting high and mighty on fallacy if it's hypocritical.)

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/

https://www.hoover.org/research/flawed-climate-models

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

The obvious conclusion is that there are two different stories being told concerning global warming even among climate scientist circles. Which ones are more likely to be correct requires people to be observant enough to see what is being said and how it actually pans out. What I keep hearing over and over again turns out to be exaggerated at best, or just plain wrong at worst. Either way it's enough to conclude that the science doesn't have a full scope of what's going on, and isn't reliable yet. Maybe in another few decades it might be more reliable and less hyperbole. But by then there will be no trust in the climate scientists who say anything. The weather men have a better chance of being right saying there's a 5% chance of slight rain and it rains so much it floods the area.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial
I offer NNS some information, from a place you claim some inner understanding of
We both, must take others views as not a sign of illness but of difference
You have zero defeninate proof you are right or I wrong lets both remember that