The scientific consensus on this matter is not an "opinion, taste, or value" - the claim that we have created a problem is robustly supported with hard evidence.
A consensus, or agreement, does not constitute a fact.
A claim does not constitute a fact.
What you have is a claim; with no proof. That's doesn't sound very scientific.
I'll give you a scientific term that would begin to give me some respect for these lapdogs, posing as scientists, who make bare assertions to justify their paychecks. It's call quantitative analysis.
I would argue, and this argument goes as far back as Ancient Rome, that you don't effectively have control of anything that you can't quantify.
That said, I have seen no evidence which quantifies exactly how much effect anthropologic CO2 has on rising global temperature. Also remember that correlation does not equate to causation. Historically, there has been a correlation to rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations; but the extreme vast majority of this CO2 has been released from ice melts. That said, in recent history the correlation of atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, has diverged exponentially. At this pont in time I see no correlation, as CO2 levels have skyrocketed, with no noticeable effect on temperature.
Now if one of these, so called, scientists could actually quantify what effect anthroplogic CO2 has on the atmosphere, and quantify how much we need to cut anthropologic CO2 emissions, to what quantifiable effect; I might pay heed. This is science.
That said, it's laughable to insist that placing a tax on CO2 emissions is a scientific solution to what science supports to be a natural Milankovitch Cycle. If it smells like a tax scheme; it probably is.
