Brandon -
My interpretation (which still seems self-evident) I feel comfortable with because in many ways it is actually not that contentious. Fred is merely saying that most experts agree about the basics – that greenhouse gases have an impact and that this deserves some research. He does say that – and says that it is wrong to cast doubt on this consensus. There is no controversy about it.
But Fred takes this uncontroversial position [that the basics are agreed by the experts] and then exaggerates it to the point where it becomes false.
In my quote of Fred’s paragraph I highlighted three things that caused me to (profoundly) disagree – in two combinations. The first was that there is agreement about there being significant impacts from anthro’ greenhouse emissions – there isn’t. Many think that the impacts are less than significant. Secondly, that there is a consensus that we must evaluate the potential consequences [which as we see, means evaluating potential negative consequences, which in turn means imagining consequences that have no justifiable reality - once set up with this frame of reference, an organisation like the IPCC will find what it wants to find]
On the back of those two misrepresentations is carried a whole misplaced menagerie of ‘shoulds’ and ‘oughts’. There is a subtle, but definite agenda (based on a belief about the future) that I think needs to be questioned – vigorously.
Fred states publicly that he believes there is a danger – a danger from greenhouse gas emissions. This belief is what underlies his ‘interpretation’ of there being no controversy, because that is what he believes. He has foisted this belief on the world at large, which is what people do when they say ‘the science is settled’. Fred wants the ‘unsettled’ bits shipped out to the margins so that the central thesis [emissions significant/consequences bad] becomes yet more established. And he wants to start this process with 12 year olds.
I worry when any set of beliefs are treated as beyond questioning, and particularly in a primitive and immature subject like climate science.
Apologies for such a long reply..