Burt Rutan did a good treatise on this and his results were very similar to mine when I had a good look at the 'science' involved.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritiq...ience.v4.3.pdf
It's ironic that those who pound the table on the 'science' involved are advocating something (trying to limit so-called greenhouse gases) that, given the actual data and tolerances, is more akin to the superstition of promoting human sacrifices for good crops than dealing with an issue and pioneering irrigated farming.
As far as science and religion it's important to keep in context science historically has been nothing more than an attempt to model a few things in a universe which is often beyond the realm of human comprehension. So long as the models seem to work and satisfy the rules made up by the human minds for themselves it is though of as 'rational.' But there are many things which will always remain outside of this and science becomes pig headed and self-serving when it arrogantly fails to acknoledge this--or of the limits of what it can quantify.
Take for example Newton's laws (and ALL of these models have been contrived in a relatively short time period on a galactic scale). For years forces, inertia and gravity were known to exist and mankind used rules of thumb to make stuff work. Mankind developed slingshots, crossbows, and rifles (which all rely on the 'laws' of physics) without really knowing why they worked but that they did work--just like they knew if one fell off a cliff one would get hurt. In the name of science, Newton kinda quantified these and we got force equals mass times acceleration. And THIS seemed to work for centuries for everything from slingshots to scales to boolits to cars to airplanes. But then someone found out that as one approached the speed of sound somehow the forces weren't the same so the model was changed to account for forces no one really knew about that had to do with compressiblity and shock waves. There was a whole bunch of sky is falling mentality in this too with 'scientists' and the sound barrier.
Even worse, we started to discover that as one approaches the speed of light Newton's laws fall apart completely. This speed represents a barrier (again a theoretical and somewhat modeled) where more and more force applied results in exponentially less acceleration. At least as far as we know. And even relativistic considerations and quantum theory might well fall apart some day as we start to discover more things through observation--again nothing more than models which are only as good as their inputs. To this day there are folks who dogmatically assert (just like Newtonians and sound-barrier deniers) this speed can never be exceeded either.
But again, all we have is a model which seems to work within a particular regime of operation. No more valid than a particular religion; it just seems to be repeatable.
So a smug assertion that 'science' has any more validity than religion really has no basis in fact. It just literally makes one a legend in one's own mind. And contravenes the very scientific method which always acknowledges there is stuff one can't explain (and might not need to).
Moreover, science can be a fickle and sometimes dangerous mistress. We got atom bombs before atomic power. We get bioweapons before we get the cure. We get neat video cams yet get every aspect of our life under surveillence. We get the boon of the internet for good and also get folks perennially wrapped up in their iphones trying to walk and drive around. We get phenominally great navigation and autoflight systems yet get pilots who forget how to fly airplanes.
Now we face a 'theory' (which has been wholly unproven and in fact mostly discredited) of CO2 causing significant change in our planet's temperature. Something which not only cannot be proven with the tolerances of the data involved, but which also is being exploited as a basis to cause real harm. Taxes, carbon credits, laws restricting carbon output, laws dictating what kinds of fuel can be burned, reguatory standards, you name it. These do real harm to real people and real economies. And for what ? Even IF the theory were valid there's no way to reign in people who would choose to cheat (and this also propagates the culture of corruption in payoffs, bribes, crony 'capitalism' and wealth redistrubution). Nor do we have any way to quantify that any actions taken would have any effect. We just push mankind back toward the stone age.
So instead of dealing with the issue; namely that we MIGHT need more energy and more air conditioners, we have those who would practice the modern day equivalent of human sacrifices.