// Doubtless my thinking is flawed, Jim, but that’s not to say that yours isn’t - especially insofar as it’s possible … just possible … that science is placing more emphasis on ‘man-made’ global warming than is justified. //
I'm sure my thinking is flawed in its own ways. And, of course it's possible. But merely saying so advances the conversation not a jot. Why do you think it's possible? What, specifically, is the flaw in the consensus that you've identified?
I think really this is, and always has been, my point: criticism in science, if it isn't concrete, is next to meaningless. The consensus often shifts, but that's because someone has found something concrete, something empirical, to offer as an alternative. The concrete is very persuasive, even to a community that can tend to be overly conservative at times.
So, yes, that's the point I'd stress: It's much easier to criticise something if you've first made an effort to understand it properly. Really dive into the details, find a specific flaw, and offer a specific solution. Otherwise, it's just a cold reading offering nothing. Any fool can read a paper and ask, "what if it's wrong?", but can they point to where on the page it's wrong? That's worth listening to; that's always worth a discussion.