Question Author
LazyGun � I broadly agree with you on many of the points you raised. Some things I take issue with though.
In point two you state, �To suggest, as your post does, that because there is a consensus the science is therefore suspect or wrong is itself a huge logical fallacy.�. If my post did suggest that then I would agree with you. Maybe I wasn�t very clear on this point. I�m not suggesting that because there is a supposed consensus then there must be a conspiracy. What I was trying to say is that whenever this subject is brought up, the GW supporters almost always bring up the �consensus� argument in an effort to close down any debate on the matter. I have lost count of the number of times I have read and heard people say, �The science is settled�. It is not settled by any means. There are a growing number of eminent people who now question the orthodoxy and are raising their heads above the parapet � much to the annoyance of the GW supporters, who almost never want to discuss the science at all � because the science is shaky to say the least.
It is shaky because most of the alarm generated by the GW lobby is based on computer models. The models claim to predict the future. Increased temperature, mass migration of people creating a humanitarian crisis, catastrophic crop failures, rising sea levels, etc. All of these predictions are based on what the models say will happen.
But the modes are almost worthless. Even the IPCC admit that their models are �...subject to substantial uncertainty.� [ref: The Physical Science Basis, 2007]. It�s akin to consulting an astrologer and on their predictions, make multibillion dollar economic decisions which could well do more harm than good.