Quote Originally Posted by John King View Post
How can you possibly refute any source or conclusion without any knowledge of them? Short answer: it is impossible, and makes your 'argument' look even more ridiculous, as you automatically assume that all contrary sources and information are flawed or wrong. That looks like religious belief to me, not science.
Firstly, I do not refute all alternative viewpoints as clearly I haven't seen them all. In life we accept countless propositions without forensically examining each and every alternative opinion. For example, I accept that Donald trump is an idiot simply because the overwhelming evidence suggests that the man is a dead set loony! Clearly a significant number of people disagree, but I remain satisfied that, on balance, my conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence I have seen.

In terms of climate change, there are of course those who dispute its origins - you are perhaps one such example. However, given that huge numbers of respected organisations have concluded that climate change deniers are wrong, I see no reason to accept alternative viewpoints unless they are supported by sufficient numbers of facts to outweigh the current consensus. Clearly the numbers are on my side of this argument.