The Preponderance of Evidence from thousands of studies from hundreds of different fields confirm the planet is warming, that warming is detrimental to the biosphere, and the climate is no longer the stable climate that agriculture developed in. Look up Preponderance if that word is giving you trouble.
If this were a criminal case, the level of confidence would easily meet the criteria for Beyond a Reasonable Doubt since the level of confidence on the preponderance of evidence is above the 90th percentile. (actually > 99%)
'So take your crap and shove it. It ain't working here no more'.
Once again....BS. Science is not decided by voting or popular opinion. Regardless of what any "consensus" might claim any one paper that points to inconsistencies, errors in interpretation or conflicting evidence completely invalidates that "consensus" view. That is the manner in which science has always worked.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
which means essentially that a "consensus" is of little matter in the face of conflicting evidence.
Richard Feynman's famous lecture pointed out the same notion:
"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.”
In science it is completely incorrect to add up the number of papers that say "a" and compare it to the number of papers that say "it can't be a" and then come to the conclusion that it must be "a" because there were more "votes". Appealing to the political opinions of scientific societies is equally invalid in the face of conflicting published research.