Comment: Re:Isn't that anti-science? (Score 1) 1055
Consensus (even if 100%!) does NOT determine truth! History is literally filled with examples of consensus being dead wrong, quite often in the name of "science".
As you look into this (I have) you discover that what we *know* about climate (and especially the causes for its widely varying changes over both history and prehistory) begins to become very thin, very quickly. Large-scale, highly multi-variate, inherently chaotic systems are *hard* to model and understand, and even if you DO manage to build an accurate model of one (and IMO, that is currently WELL beyond our technological abilities), that is NO indication that the model is accurate or valid. And even if the model is valid for a subset of the problem domain, there is a very good chance that the fundamental presuppositions that underlie it are wrong to at least some degree. This is clearly seen even in areas that are far better understood than global climate change and GHG forcing - despite the fact that we can produce useful models of many phenomena (as did Newtonian physics), we frequently(!) discover new knowledge that causes reevaluations of our previous "knowledge" and assumptions.
REAL truth is hard to come by, and even the scientific pursuit of truth and knowledge should start with the recognition of what we don't know, and what we can't know (or at least, what we cannot prove scientifically, which is a great deal - not all questions can be answered in a scientific, observational way...)