I agree that scientists can fall into the fervor of a belief so much that it blinds them to the data. After all, they are human beings and even the most analytical person can have bouts of irrationality. I also agree that consensus is NOT proof.
While there still may not be irrefutable proof of global warming, regardless of their causes – whether you believe in anthropocentric drivers, like fossil fuels from power plants and airplanes and cars and chemicals dumped on the ocean ad-infinitum, or not — the observed changes in climate are scientific facts that have grave implications for the future of natural and human systems.
So to answer your point, EVEN IF there is still not enough scientific evidence to give say a 5-sigma definitive signal that the odds of HFGW is real, the cautious thing to do IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WE DO HAVE is to prepare for the worst, all the while crossing my fingers and hoping for the best. If it turns out that the whole thing was a mistake, then we will not be much worse off due to the caution. Developing renewable resources is inherently not a bad thing and is good diversification in general. But if it turns out to be true (in the five-sigma event case), then we will be really glad that we took steps early to try to dampen the potential catastrophic repercussion that may occur. Time ahead of it is what makes it so damning if we do nothing. At some point, the process is irreversible.
So, this debate back and forth about scientific evidence is silly. My guess is that the evidence we have now is something like a 2-sigma event, enough for serious worry, but not necessarily out of the realm that what we could be seeing is conceivably a head-fake and the warming is due to a greater extent by natural processes.
But, when you plug in the 2-std into any probability model that says, how should we proceed with this evidence when the stakes are so incredibly high, no one in their right minds takes the position that you and Jem and others do.
So I will let you and others here debate for sport whether the scientific evidence is or is not enough to warrant assigning it a 99.999999% true value. I prefer to deal with the evidence in a probabilistic manner.
The odds of a asteroid striking Earth is something like 1 to 1,000,000,000,000 against. But if it does strike the Earth all life on Earth is dead for at least a thousand years. So, what is the correct thing to do? To try to avert it if possible and dedicate resources to hedge ourselves. EVEN AGAINST something so ridiculously rare. The evidence for HFGW is a million trillion, yes, a MILLION TRILLION, times more likely than that, with scenarios of devastation similar to an asteroid hitting Earth. Except it will be a slow death instead of a fast one.
So to battle the very unlikely event of dangerous global warming destroying the earth, you want every poor country to not become developed, live in squalor, not lift their people out of abject poverty, not have modern medicine or hospitals, not have an effective electric generation system, and live in the stone age. Because by "taking action" this is what you are committing India and many other poor countries to. Basically "taking climate change action" is condemning their populations to death in order to appease western countries.
Why 'climate justice' has India and the West at each other's throats
http://theweek.com/articles/584216/why-climate-justice-india-west-each-others-throats
You wouldn't know it from the happy spin emanating from the Oval Office, but a Third World revolt in Bonn, Germany, this week almost derailed the Paris climate change negotiations in November. Although peace has been restored for now, it only happened by papering over this fundamental conundrum: The world can either avert climate catastrophe or seek "climate justice," not both.
The revolt was triggered when 130 developing nations including India and China noticed that the draft action plan that is supposed to serve as the blueprint for the Paris negotiations had omitted their most important conditions about the "fairness and financing" of the final deal — in other words, who is going to take responsibility for the warming and who should pay to reduce it? The South African delegation condemned the omission as "apartheid" that would penalize poor countries for the sins of the rich
It has a point.
The Paris negotiations are supposed to be the mother of all climate negotiations. It was convened to impose binding emission reductions on all countries — not just the West, as was the case with the 1995 Kyoto protocol — to hold global temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees centigrade over pre-industrial levels. To this end, each country has been asked to submit its own good faith reduction plan that includes both how much it will cut emissions and its plan for getting there. Once finalized after a review in Paris, the plans will be legally binding — although how precisely they will be enforced is anyone's guess.
Setting that aside, negotiations will boil down to an essential question: How much should each country cut and therefore whose idea of "climate justice," as Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi has termed it, should prevail?
All issues that require collective action, especially on a global scale, are difficult to resolve because they suffer from the free-rider problem, i.e. some parties seek to benefit from the "common good" without springing for it. But as Oren Cass, a Manhattan Institute analyst, notes, fighting climate change is a particularly vexing problem because the individual cost to each country, especially Third World ones, will be immediate and huge — and the benefits distant and uncertain. The notion that emission cuts can pay for themselves through increased energy efficiency is at best fanciful and, at worst, a lie.
There are no low-carbon energy technologies available today that can sustain the economic growth rates these countries need to lift their people out of abject poverty, let alone offer Western living standards at anything resembling an affordable cost. Over 300 million Indians still live below the poverty line, earning less than $1 per day. India's per capita energy consumption is 15 times less than the United States'. India has to keep boosting its energy use — and therefore carbon emissions — for at least another two decades to eliminate dire poverty, which is why its reduction plan only commits to slashing "emission intensity" — its emission rate as a percentage of its GPD — not emissions themselves.
Even this much, India claims, will require up to a $2.5 trillion investment over the next 15 years in renewable energy sources and adaptation technologies. Even if that figure is exaggerated, clearly this would be a challenge for a country that has yet to offer basic sanitation, transportation, and clean-water infrastructure to all its citizens.
(More at above url)