"The scientific community could not possibly hope to have a definite answer to that."
Do I take that by your logic we should not even try to understand the environment? Since definitive answers are not possible, and if the current expert's opinion is not sufficient, then I fail to see what argument could possibly be of any higher quality.
"Hard liners on "man-made" climate change are sponsored through various channels just like hard-liners on no climate change at all."
Evoking "hardliners" sounds like all debates would be about selecting the most charismatic authority and sticking with their opinion.
I prefer to peruse the reports of established scientific bodies http://www.ipcc.ch/
No, it sounds like balanced opinions are always better than radical opinions. Radicals are almost always wrong and always unproductive.
And to answer your other question, environmental NGOs have plenty to do with atmospheric research. They publicize it some of it. They fund some of it. They use some of it as a political lever.
Are there any links between NGO "environmental fud" and IPCC federated results that would point out stronger political rather than scientific drivers for the results?
Do I take that by your logic we should not even try to understand the environment? Since definitive answers are not possible, and if the current expert's opinion is not sufficient, then I fail to see what argument could possibly be of any higher quality.
"Hard liners on "man-made" climate change are sponsored through various channels just like hard-liners on no climate change at all."
Evoking "hardliners" sounds like all debates would be about selecting the most charismatic authority and sticking with their opinion.
I prefer to peruse the reports of established scientific bodies http://www.ipcc.ch/