Thomas wrote:... And his credentials as a scientist make him an adequate counterexample to the claim that a scientific consensus supports the notion of catastrophic global warming. (The operative word being "catastrophic".)
I believe that is the essential point in this increasingly absurd controversy -- i.e. catastrophic warming. It is unfortunate that the truly interesting and serious question of the increase in CO2 emissions to the atmosphere by human activity is so needlessly clouded with scientifically unsupported claims of tipping points and sudden climactic reversals, and, as well, by the unnecessary denial of the other relatively greater natural factors affecting the result, including atmospheric water vapor and solar activity.
There are many catastrophies that could happen, ranging from the sudden weakening of the earth's magnetic field, to a large meteorite impact, to unusual volcanic activity, or even an ice age inducing decrease in solar activity. However, we don't have any scientific ability to forecast the relative likelihoods of these events or the catastrophes so thoughtlessly predicted by the AGW cultists. That is a less dramatic than the story being sold by Al Gore and British bureaucrats, but it is the truth.
