griz, I'm not really asserting that certain claims are wrong, I don't believe I've engaged in any in depth analysis of any scientific claims that have been made. There are certain things that I recognise as misunderstandings or even misinformation, but I'm not sure where I've been explicit except on the issue of water vapour which is a commonly raised issue.
Ron, I'm not sure how to address the issue of consensus in science. I think when you say it is not to be confused with the scientific method you overstate your case. Consensus is when scientists agree that the theory best fits the facts, and it is usually arrived at by this method of peer review. I'm loath to mention Naomi Oreske because there lies a whole other can of worms, but a quick search on her name will take you to her study of peer reviewed climate science papers and how many of them (in her estimation, which is part of my hestitation to mention her) disagreed with the consensus position on climate change.
There are definite valid questions as to whether (as a scientist acquantaince of mine put it earlier today) science drives consensus or consensus drives science. But I would be very careful about assuming this is mere safety in numbers or that this is based on 'presuppositions', the consensus position is that of the IPCC 3rd Report, and the signatories to that report include very weighty bodies from around the world. I'm not about to delve greatly into Popper and the scientific method, but perhaps the idea that consensus is not part of the scientific method, but comes about as a result of the scientific method is worth a thought.
I find consensus difficult because there is always someone who disagrees with consensus and thinks that this makes them the new Galileo. Sure there are very notable exceptions - but in general the vast vast majority of those who oppose the scientific consensus turn out to be wrong.
And to mountainclmbr and my last contribution to this thread. If someone other than me in one of these threads read the words '...and scientists predicted global cooling in the 1970's...' and responded by saying something like 'Not one peer reviewed scientific paper has yet been found that predicted global cooling in the 1970's. Sure there were newspaper stories about it, but there have been newspaper stories about all sorts of questionable scientific claims. To compare a few newspaper stories to a vast canon of peer reviewed scientific work, regardless of my views of the veracity of those papers, is to err on the side of the ridiculous' then I'd probably quit these discussions pretty happy.
And griz, hope you have/had a good weekend too.