Recently started a debate with someone online about a scientific topic that seemingly has almost full support from the worldwide scientific community but, for some reason, is still debated heavily in politics. The topic is, of course, climate change, but I don't want to give anyone a prejudice, since it's both hotly debated and rooted in politics. Anyways, here's the gist of the replies, and I'm suspicious that they're fallacies in one way or another but wanted to get the opinions of others as well:
1. Politicians who support this field of science do things in their personal lives that contradict the legislation they'd like to pass. In other words, one politician just bought an SUV. Another politician just bought a home on an oceanfront which would be subject to rising tides. Does that show any insincerity?
2. Academic bodies predicted that worldwide catastrophe would have occurred by now, but it hasn't, so "its never going to" (ie, in 10 years, on 3 different occasions, which were predicted in the 1970s).
3. I can't explain why numerous scientists disagree on the existence of climate change.
4. That medical practitioners have seen "miracles" but can't explain it; kind of off topic, but this coming from a religious person who argues that medical science has at least some prayer and belief.
Anyways, can you spot the fallacies at play here? I spotted a few but I'm just getting into logical arguments and wanted to know what you think.