Though scientific consensus must always be open to responsible skepticism given: (a) the strength of the consensus
on this
topic, (b) the enormity of the harms predicted by the consensus view, (c) an approximately 30 year delay in taking action that has transpired since a serious climate change
debate began in the United States in the early 1980s, (d) a delay that has made the problem worse while making it more difficult to achieve ghg emissions reductions necessary to prevent dangerous climate change because of the steepness of reductions now needed, no politician can ethically justify his or her refusal to support action
on climate change based upon a personal opinion that is not supported by strong scientific evidence that has been reviewed by scientific organizations with a
wide breadth of interdisciplinary scientific expertise.