Sorry, but your attempt at minimizing the dissent is laughable. Nobody cares about my opinion, I give the opinions of those who are actually experts in the field. Your statement that "Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts." is indicative of your wishful thinking and that of those with agendas, not reality. But I find that last sentence telling - "is very like due to human activities" - What???- "very likely", not "indisputably, unarguably factual" - what happened to the set in stone assurances?<quoted text>
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.*** Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.
The IPCC issued statements with concurring backing of 57 nations and 287 university study research department ratification statements that just because Aggie doesn't believe doesn't mean MMCC is not a widely-studied and proven phenomena.
The IPCC has been shown to have a political agenda and is not the neutral body merely looking for the truth through scientific inquiry - if that were the case, there wouldn't be a problem. You claimed it was so relevant that Chris Brierly resigned over the publishing of Akasofu's study. Well, using your own criteria Dr Chris Landsea's resignation from the 4th IPCC report must convince you of the weakness of the IPCC's reports. Pertinent quotes from his resignation letter:
"My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the
credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy."
"I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the
misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC."
"the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our
climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost."
"It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views
on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the
Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several
presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation---though
worthy in his mind of public pronouncements---would not stand up to the
scrutiny of fellow climate scientists."
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I
view as both being MOTIVATED BY PRE-CONCEIVED AGENDAS AND BEING SCIENTIFICALLY UNSOUND." (emphasis mine)
While his well founded accusations of agendas are important, the following statement is the one I find the most ironic.
"Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress
in climate science."
That is what you and the MMCC acolytes refuse to acknowledge, there is PLENTY of room for debate and plenty of evidence to bring into question the claim that "the debate is over" - that in itself is the antithesis of scientific inquiry.