re: #179 LudwigVanQuixote

Bagua, I am not interested in getting into this semantic debate with you.

The IPCC statement that you quote was deeply watered down in order to gain wider acceptance from the various entities - not all scientific - involved with it.

If you do not believe that we are definitely the source and the cause of the present warming, then refute the smoking guns listed in #105.

I repeat. We are 100% certain the primary driver of the present warming.

As a scientist I will give we are 90% certain that we are the only driver worth being taken into account. I give the last 90% because there is some evidence that solar variations are having a very small effect. However, no-one believes that they are the primary driver.

It is not “semantics” it is science, the IPCC represents the current consensus on AGW, they are extremely clear in their definitions, they do not play word games.

I repeat. 100% certain, we the faithful are the primary driver of the present trend.

I fixed your conclusion for you, it is important to distinguish between science and religion when discussing science and religion.