baha, the whole climate debate has revolved for years around the IPCC pubs. They publish "Assessment Reports". AR4 was published in 2007, AR5 in 2014, and AR6 is expected in 2019. These are in the form of three large documents from the working groups, and a "short" synthesis report of about 150 pages, and then an even shorter "Summary for Policy Makers". NONE are light reading, my guess is that most politicians don't get past the half page abstract of the Summary Report, and don't understand that.
The take away message here is that the Summary Report is where they present and opinion poll of the working group members about climate. They present majority and minority totals. Without question, the majority of members has favored the position that humans are changing climate in all the summaries. However, as we learn more about climate and climate models, the size of the majority is shrinking. I believe that in AR6 next year, the majority will shrink again.
The very suggestion that certainty does not exist, or that there are perfectly qualified climate experts in the minority opinion, such as the afore-mentioned Christy, Spencer, and Lindzen - drives the AGW fanboys absolutely batty. The idea that the concensus opinion is slowly unravelling as the impact of the solar minumum owns the atmospheric carbon content, is even more disturbing. But the most disturbing concept of all: we'll never really know who was right with complete certainty, because science doesn't work that way, although in a couple of centuries, there will be a lot less uncertainty about climate.
You'd think somebody shot their dog, the way they are acting.