Canadian Politics Today

In other words, the vast majority of the climate science community knows less about the validity of their work than you.

This is the common misconception. The fact is the "majority" of the climate scientists specialize in areas other than the study of past temperature proxies so their opinion is no more informed than any other person with a scientific background that has not looked at the relevant papers. That said, I have spent the time to read a lot about the topic so I can correctly state that I do know better than the "majority" of climate scientists.

Now I realize you would likely want to back-peddle and claim that you only really meant the majority of scientists working on proxy data and this subset of scientists do know more than I do on the topic. However, they are hardly trustworthy sources given the fact that their careers depend on proxy data being perceived as useful. This means they have a huge incentive to ignore problems and engage in statistical games which their peers with the same self interest like but violate all of the normal rules of statistical analysis. Now you can be skeptical of my criticisms but you can't simply claim that I must be wrong because the people I claim are sloppy claim they are not. That is like saying a politician is not  corrupt because the politician says he is not corrupt.

Of course, all of these arguments will go over your head because everyone filters climate arguments based on their perception of the resulting policies. You are credulous because climate change gives support to a lot of policies that you like and I am skeptical because I dislike those policies. If you did not like the policies you would find my arguments very reasonable. Case in point: the majority of scientists feel that GMOs are safe - is that good enough for you?