I'm not a physical science guy but in the case of Dyson and Harper I find it pretty hard to believe that the folks building the big competing models of climate have ignored the physical properties of CO2. To compete with those models, they'd need a model of their own that includes CO2 saturation in some meaningful manner and to go through some sort of peer review.
Here's a more detailed workout on the Charles Mann's point in the video above:
The problem is that if all you have to do is make up something that sounds plausible and not work inside the modeling and peer-review process there's a near infinite amount of shit that you can throw. Which, of course, they do.
That's why I contend that a competing model is 'table stakes.'
The best argument might be probabilistic: let's say there's a 40% chance Harper is right (he isn't) and a 60% chance we're burning down the planet. What's the forward path? It's one thing to risk falling on the monkeys and another when you're half way up El Cap.
Appreciate the comment,