Quote Originally Posted by raja
When I am faced with a controversial issue for which I have neither the background nor expertise to form my own opinion, I am always favorably impressed with those who present both sides of the argument, and who warn that the debate needs to clearly distinguish between what is known and what is unknown.
The problem I have with the consensus is that it both fails to communicate its own failures - many of which are documented in Climate Change in other threads - and equally that many of its so called 'scientist' proponents are so clearly emotionally invested in a specific outcome.

Equally disturbing is the desire by many of the 'consensus' to advocate specific solutions to the CO2 'problem'. Even were CO2 unequivocably the problem - which is far, far from clear - the solution society should undertake is a function of social choices.

As I noted in a different thread: the decision to trade off millions of dead babies (and adults) in order to prevent CO2 from rising is one society needs to make.

Fortunately the rest of the world has clearly made its decision, and the CAGW community's placement of all its marbles in the CO2-Climate-Catastrophe basket is now yielding its expected result.