The problem is that the alarmist members of the so-called Consensus insist that “uncertainty” requires us to act.
Unfortunately what is needed in order to evaluate the merits of any action is understanding of “risk” – that measure (both measurable and measured) of likelihood of identifiable scenarios. Why do we need that? In order to weigh the expected costs and benefits in a world where we have limited resources and must make trade-offs (e.g. lots of intermittent wind power at the cost of less health care, transport or communications infrastructure, or even simple holidays and bottle sof beer on a hot day).
And there lies the point of criticism of most so-called Skeptics. The available literature is teeming with unknowns (quite possibly unknowables), to the extent that even after spending tens of billions of dollars on formalised modelling of this Consesnsu hypothesis (dangerous climate change) we cannot even demonstrate the ability to produce a robust zero dimension climatic forecast. In fact, quite the opposite – the efficacy of the modelling as proven in forecasting is inconceivably and irredeemably trashed.
Ironically, what this excercise of the Military beaurocracy demostrates is indeed risk mitigation on the parts of the generals concerned who commissioned this work, except it isn’t the climate related risk.
It is known to you and me as covering your a**e and it costs them nothing.