So what? Even the most intelligent being can be wrong. Can a large majority of highly intelligent human beings be wrong all at once? Yes, but highly doubtful. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html
Just watch. These people will not argue on facts because they can’t. CO2 doubling here refers to all CO2 right. Human contribution is still only 2%. But guy with the low IQ had to bring up cyanide. Where the proper logical sequence would be - if you are gonna die from 100 inches of cyanide what does 2 inches gonna matter anyway. Usually debates on the internet are more miss than hit. On average you get a guy with 100 IQ. and that is way too low for anything meaningful.
Here is why I am skeptical of "climate change": 1. Mention of taxing carbon emission. Huge red flag here. 2. If everyone is genuine about reducing carbon output, why move all the production to China where the CO2 to power efficiency is much less? Nuclear power plant would be built everywhere to replace coal plant. 3. No concrete evidence except "consensus", empty slogan like "Climate change is real", really?
I believe your skepticism is justified. If you put science, public opinion, and the profit motive into a blender you don't get liquid gold out, you get shit.
On the flip side, you could just as easily say this about anything, right. I mean we tax to support fire stations, should we suspect the fact that buildings burn down and we need fire protection? We tax to support police, should that lead us to suspect the fact that crime occurs. Or how about the biggie, responsible for the vast majority of our discretionary federal budget, the military. Talk about profit motive of the military industrial complex, does that mean that we should put "national defense" in quotes as if it's not real? And let's not start with the "lack of concrete evidence" bullshit. Let's not let the @dozu888 morons of the world pull "facts" out of their ass here. There are a bunch of things that are easy to measure and completely beyond dispute. Like the fact that the concentration of CO2 in the air has indisputably gone up by more than 40% since the industrial revolution started. And ocean acidification as a direct result of that is established fact. That's a massive experiment on a global scale. Even if one is "skeptical", given the potential for massive disruption caused by this experiment why in the world wouldn't you be in favor of putting as much effort as possible into trying to find out what the impacts will be and at the same time trying to start us down the cost curve of alternatives that don't perpetuate the experiment?
I think your argument would be a very strong one were it not that exactly the same argument can be applied to the few thousand scientists worldwide that question the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis. This number of scientists is of course far smaller than the number of scientists that are convinced that anthropomorphic CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Nevertheless, to paraphrase your own remark, how is it possible that a few thousand well trained expert scientists, including some of the most intelligent people on this Earth, can be wrong? You'll find this article interesting. https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-contrarian-uncovers-scientific-error.html I found it interesting in that although the article is about an error in an important scientific paper, the last sentence in the article is itself in error. The last sentence is: "The study is still the first to confirm that the ocean is warming using a method independent of direct ocean temperature measurements." This is bizarre. The the article is about how the probability range in the original Scripps paper in Nature was incorrectly estimated, and that the correct range is 10-70%. Such a range only allows one reasonable conclusion. And that is that the test hypothesis that the ocean is warming can neither be rejected nor accepted at any reasonable level of significance. Nevertheless, the work has at least some merit in that the novel experimental method used -- ocean surface gas analysis as a proxy measurement for ocean temperature -- is quite "interesting."
I am extremely happy to delve with you into very specific details but NOT BEFORE we can agree on some big ticket items on human caused climate change. There is zero point in arguing with a human being about calculations about aerodynamics when such human being denies the concept of gravity. So far I sense on your part a steadfast denial that humans are to a large extent responsible for changes in the climate since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Unless we can find conceptual agreement what's the use to talk about ocean temperature warming.
It's actually a fairly common occurrence. Look at all the very smart people in our industry who collectively get things wrong. The author Michael Lewis has made a very good living writing books about how large populations of smart people (the ordained experts in the field) get things very wrong - from finance to professional sports. preface: I'm not saying that climate scientists are collectively wrong, I'm saying that we shouldn't dismiss healthy critical review. If climate scientists are so certain of their work they should welcome inquiry and not dismiss it with mean spirited tropes and disdain. After all, they are asking mankind to spend untold Trillions of dollars and to make substantial changes to their very lives, the lives of families and generations to come, to their quality of life, their homes, their property.