I think the (il)logic runs thusly. God would not constitute a world that needed government regulation. Any argument or theory or observation which would support an increase in regulation therefore must be wrong.

look out the sky is falling!

hahaha you guys crack me up - catstrophic global warming - run for the hills!

I thought Krauthammer offered a rationale view - here is an excerpt:

"Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative."

I'm always amazed how gristmillers are so damn certain of the most extreme predictions. its obvious after a while that most of the contributors have little real world science experience working with theories and developing technology.

grist.org

The fact that "t is nearly impossible to win an argument with a conservative or libertarian who hates government-led action" should not dissuade people from asking them this question:  Why is it not OK to regulate private behavior for the public good and/or the good of the Earth?

Sane people support this type of regulation.

skeptic's weekly calendar:
Mon weds fri: "more research is needed to determine whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not, before we spend trillions of dollars on fixing it"
Tues thurs sat: "Global warming chicken littles need to keep this global warming hoax alive in order to keep their fat research grants rolling in"
sunday: church.

Predictions of evolution depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex biological systems -- from the bacterial flagellum to eye formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The evolutionary scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative. [modifications and emphasis mine]

At what point do we know enough? What level of confidence is necessary before we trust the conclusions drawn? Is there something special about climate science that requires a higher standard than other sciences? If so, why?

I don't think that lack of regulation will create a new totalitarian system that will last for a long time. I think it will create a shortlived totalitarian system just for a few decades before the entire civilisation collapses in some sort of 'Mad Max' scenario.

I also think that, due to Peak Oil already knocking on our door, even with radical steps towards renewable energy and resources, there will never again in our lifetimes be the abundance we have been enjoying for more than half a century. Building an entire new infrastructure needs time, and we haven't got enough time left to act. All we can do now is try to prevent the worst outcome, which is the total collapse of all civilisation on this planet within the next 100-200 years.