3] You ask in the answers of this post for "a source where scientists or scientific groups acknowledge their contribution to climate change?". Well, since scientists are humans, and humans are on of the cause of climate change, then by simple logic: scientists may also be part of climate change. So any paper indicating that humans are the source of climate change is a good enough source to claim that scientists may play a role.

This ain't bad. But it still begs the question - Why do scientists not make explicit what HUMAN ACTIVITY is at the root of climate change? They say 'human activity' all the time, right, when they talk about 'what's causing it'? But you wouldn't let a doctor just pat you on the head and tell you 'cancerous activity' and then send you on your way, would you? I mean, wouldn't you like it if they were a little more explicit? Like - about everything? Maybe 'causes' first?

4] Tell me if I am wrong, Yes, you are. I'm not making devils or angels here - I'm asking why scientists do not specify what 'human activity' is when they describe the causes of climate change