> ... it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for decades ... This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often

> ... it is very strange that almost all scientists can be mistaken for decades ... This could happen if the foundations of the theory are not questioned often. If they are taken as axioms, then the rest of the system follows from it. > If there was some real and credible alternative to the consensus and this alternative would show that the present science is wrong, it would replace it without hesitation We are talking very long term effects here, so it is nearly impossible to know in detail how a chaotic system like Earth will evolve. He is offering a very specific prediction, although extremely difficult to verify: 1) that without human intervention long-term CO2 levels tend to zero 2) that current increases in temperature do not follow increases in CO2, rather the opposite 3) that increases in temperature (and CO2) do not mean mass extinctions, rather the opposite. What is the standard counter-argument to these points? Are all false?