No, Ray, I have read your posts. You are not about sound evidence. You are about evidence that meets your ever-changing standard. You are now attacking the peer review system because it's imperfect and it's the exact same thing you do with evidence about climate change - you say it's not perfect and therefore you're not prepared to accept any of it or do anything.
Don't be silly, Phil. Nothing's perfect. Everyone understands that, surely.
You say you've read my posts, but it's clear you have not understood them.
Of course I accept the evidence, provided it's confirmed with repeated testing and meets the highest scientific standards.
What I don't accept are unscientific and unjustified claims of certainty for political reasons, distorted, misleading descriptions which are clearly created for maximum alarm, and a biased reporting of the effects of increased CO2 levels which only mentions the negative aspects and ignores the positive aspects.
You want mankind to have energy security but you don't want to drive replacements of systems that use finite resources and, at the same time, stop polluting our planet? That's utterly irrational.
You really haven't read my posts. I've mentioned in some detail before that the real pollution should always be addressed. The pollution in the cities of China is not due to CO2 but due to particulate carbon, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and various Nitrogen oxides etc, which have an adverse effect on health. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant at current levels.
So I will put this to you - where is the perfect evidence that shows that doing nothing is in our best interests?
I presume you mean do nothing about CO2 emissions. It's a matter of priorities. As I've mentioned before, one can't spend the same money and resources twice. At an individual level, the choice might be between buying a new car, or spending the same amount of money on the extra construction costs to raise your new house above the level of previous floods.
At a government level, the choice might be between spending money to subsidise solar panels and windmills, or building a number of dams to protect vulnerable citizens from the consequences of alternating floods and droughts which are known to have occurred in the past, and don't seem to have anything to do with current CO2 levels.
Once we've got ourselves well-protected from natural disasters and extreme weather events, then that might be the time to consider reducing CO2 levels, if the case is strong that an increased intensity of extreme weather events might result from increased CO2 levels.
The latest IPCC report admits that the evidence for increased extreme weather events is not strong, due to a lack of data.
A future shortage of fossil fuels is the best reason to explore and do research on alternative methods of energy supply. I'm all in favour of efficient solar power and electric vehicles. We should use them in combination with the latest technology for clean coal power, and natural gas.