Check out this lecture by Richard Lindzen:
In Part 4 he notes:
The IPCC “consensus”: It is likely that most of the warming over the past 50 years is due to man’s emissions.
How was this arrived at?
What was done, was to take a large number of models that could not reasonably simulate known patterns of natural behavior (such as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation), claim that such models nonetheless accurately depicted natural internal climate variability, and use the fact that these models could not replicate the warming episode from the mid-seventies through the mid-nineties, to argue that forcing was necessary and the forcing must have been due to man.
This argument makes arguments in support of intelligent design sound rigorous by comparison. It constitutes a rejection of scientific logic, while widely put forward as being “demanded” by science.
He goes on to say that this constitutes arguing, “we can’t think of anything else,” (an argument from ignorance) and that ID has done something of this kind, only much more persuasively than the warmists. The point he makes is that if you’re going to argue that ID is invalid because it makes an argument from ignorance, the same challenge should be made concerning man-made global warming argumentation, only much more vigorously.
I’ll bet Lindzen is not very familiar with the ID literature. I’d be interested in his reaction after having read Signature In The Cell or many other ID publications that make the positive case for design.