Look. Every time stuff like this comes up, all we get are reminders of the consensus of scientists that anthropogenic global warming is taking place. No mention is made of the disagreement within that consensus of how severe the consequences will be or even the degree to which human beings are responsible.
Maybe the alarmists are right. But personally, my confidence is not helped by mere appeals to the consensus when refutation of counter-arguments is needed.
Shouldn't scientists have to defend their conclusions from the data? Instead, we get this.
Personally, I believe that climate change is real. But is it entirely anthropogenic? And is it catastrophic? "Trust us, we're the experts" doesn't cut it- especially when the consensus in matters of degree among the experts themselves is misrepresented.