You are fitting more and more into the lazy thinking conspiracy theorist/pseudoscience category...what you have posted is a perfect example of sloppy cherry-picking of old information and pretending it is current science. You have posted a 1998 BMJ letter quoting a 1996 opinion piece by Frederick Seitz. That is 30 years old. And Seitz did not write the quoted passage for the BMJ — he wrote it in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece attacking the IPCC's 1995 assessment. The BMJ article simply quoted him. More importantly, look at what you're actually doing: you're presenting a 30-year-old scientific controversy as though it represents today's scientific position. It doesn't. In 1996 the IPCC cautiously said that the balance of evidence suggested a “discernible human influence”. Today, after another three decades of observations, measurements and research, the IPCC states that “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.” And the scientific literature has moved in exactly the same direction. A 2021 analysis of 88,125 climate-related papers found that the consensus on human-caused climate change exceeds 99%. So quoting Seitz in 2026 is rather like producing a 1996 medical textbook to prove that today's medical science is wrong. Science changes when the evidence changes. That's not a weakness of science — that's the entire point of science. The interesting question isn't why scientists changed their minds since 1996. It's why you're still relying on 1996 arguments when the scientific evidence has moved on. That's not scepticism. That's cherry-picking.
