Regardless of whether one believes their science to be legitimate or flawed, one cannot separate it from the argument.



there is an expression, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Some will look at the clock and say "it says 11:55, so that must be the time", others will look at the clock and say "it says 11:55 and since it is usually wrong it must be wrong again and so it is not 11:55". IMHOP if you have an issue with the broken clock look at a different clock that is not broken and it will be better able to tell you what time it really is.



I've made no claim about the UN's goals; they are indeed entirely desirable. It is, however, ridiculous to promote a course of action that will not only not solve those issues, it will make life worse for many millions more.


But that is exactly the point, your comments have an axiomatic contradiction in them. it is ridiculous if they are trying to pull a fast one (help the poor and hungry by complaining about a made up global warming issue) it is not ridiculous if
a) they are not trying to help the poor and hungry or
b) they (rightly or wrongly) believe GW is a real issue.

Then, I fear, one has no understanding of leftist ideology and its desire for control.

please explain.

As I said, the IPCC is a political organisation. It is not their role to be dispassionate about the evidence of climate change; they merely seek that which supports their cause. It is they who are turning a blind eye.



but you said earlier that it does not support their cause

Uncertainty is the whole issue. As I pointed out, your 'stable' climate has undergone radical change in the past without any help from CO₂. One must also note that in a naturally warming world, atmospheric CO₂ concentration will increase due to planetary out-gassing



but so are mass extinctions, destruction of quality of life, famine and plagues.

"Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase."
However, there is no clear understanding of the size of the presumed anthropogenic component, nor is there any clear understanding of the level surface heating which can be attributed to it.

agree and that was the point I made earlier on I don't think it is 100% man made and I don't think we can ever say it is x% man made and y% natural. But that some of it is man made makes a huge difference IMHO. llet me put it this way, my friends house that got flooded was at the outer reach of the flooding, his house has a few steps in front, if there was just a bit more water his first floor would have been ruined as well and if there was just a bit less water his house would have been spared, it is not an all or nothing thing but a matter of degrees and if we add to those degrees we are the ones making it worst.

And if CO₂ isn't the problem the IPCC would have us believe it is, what do you propose we do

fight it anyways because it is part of the problem, you agreed to it several words earlier in this exact post

modify the ocean and air currents, change our orbital trajectory, put a large UV filter between us and the sun? Sorry, but the idea of combating nature, in this regard, is even more absurd than trying to restrict/reduce CO₂ emissions.

why is it straw man with you did I say any of that absurd stuff. We have been reshaping and changing the world for thousands of years, from waterways being artificially routed for irrigation and transportations to the Netherlands where at this point 1/3 the country is technically below sea level.