Well yes, I thought the article captured a lot of interesting numbers. Much more useful if you skip the ad hominems (I don't care what you think of the author)

Well yes, I thought the article captured a lot of interesting numbers. Much more useful if you skip the ad hominems (I don't care what you think of the author) and focus on critiquing the substance. What's wrong with the data? Happy to hear. Scientific consensus - no one asserted that it represents proof. You are wrong to say that scientifically it means nothing. I think you mean to say what Wikipedia says: "Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method." However from a societal point of view it is important, which is clearly highlighted by the attempts of the energy industry to promote the idea that there isn't a scientific consensus when there is one. Obviously I take issue with the bits where you go on to talk about disproven theories and unreliability of models. You're veering off into that industry messaging which aims to convince a reader that the science we have is not solid enough to decide whether to act on emissions, which is completely false. It's a recipe I hereby label the "global warming denialist's unscientific method": 1. Construct your own notion of how science works. 2. Dismiss climate science based on 1. 3. Convince yourself (and others) you hold a scientific position.