[auganov]

If I was a sincere believer in the threat of CO2 driven global warming I'd want:

   - better temperature measurement tech (even the data can be controversial, big problem)
   - better measurement tech for all potentially relevant factors
   - a well-reasoned model that can better predict what's "variance" today, the more precise the model the quicker you can prove it right

Without any data or models we already knew CO2, all else being equal, should have a net warming effect of some kind. What the failed models suggest is we don't know much more than that. Without any advances, even if the current trend continues indefinitely, I don't see this being settled in my lifetime. You'll have a much easier time convincing me I should care about CO2's effect on cognition.

I don't think all Malthusian concerns are of the same kind in terms of epistemic controversy. I could see humanity dying because of something that could have been prevented with collective action. What I don't see happening is humanity saving itself by collectively choosing to defer to the right people. It almost seems like a logical contradiction. If we do save ourselves from catastrophe by collective action I except there to be collective conviction. If we die because we were too stupid to listen to somebody then we were bound to die either way.