Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
I think you will find I was not the one claiming that there was nearly a universal understanding of the science. Nor did I claim science is perfection. Where the rest of your post comes from, I can not say.
You're both attacking a position that no-one here actually holds:

Quote Originally Posted by Enoch the Red View Post
Which science? The greenhouse effect? You are talking about an incredibly intricate system, one which is not even close to being fully known. Even it it were, the world is hardly static. There are certainly elements that are better understood than others, but I think it would take a lot of hubris to claim universal or complete understanding of the science with a straight face - otherwise why are we still putting money into climate change studies?
Anyway, the science itself is reasonably good and getting better. The measured/observed data is noisy but we have some idea of the best and worst cases. Even if the science were crap, the best case we can reasonably expect doesn't seem to be all that awesome tbh