I'm actually amused by what you started here.It's intriguing how angry you get about all this.
Did you honestly think I was going to let you off the hook when you said a while back you're a consensus science type of guy?
The recent immorality claim just added to the fun.
Your argument essentially boils down to the consensus is where it's at.
That is no argument at all when you start peeling away at it.., the evidence to back it up is not hard evidence. It's actually mushy. Add all the money and political gain and you get an entirely different picture. One that is not very flattering for self proclaimed climate moralists.
I think this type of game playing is poisonous to open science and to the community.
You're not arguing for the sake of understanding. You're arguing just to win a game of rhetoric.