Actually, the constant refrain of "consensus" is the tune played by all the AGW fanboys at PO.com. The "consensus" of all the IPCC members is the biggie, according to them - even though anybody can join the organization online simply by paying dues. The evidence of this is nearby, in the PO.com archives, a lot of it used in a vain attempt to persuade ME that doom follows the burning of FF's.
Well, it might - I allow for that possibility, as unlikely as it might be. A proper and "Scientific" approach to any difficult subject demands that an attitude of skepticism be maintained. The unfortunate fact that we are still on the upslope of a 15,000 year warming trend since the Pleistocene Glacial doesn't help, it means that any confirmed evidence of simple warming must be discounted, and one has to establish an EXTRA warming above the natural warming, to prove a point about AGW.
Then there was that unfortunate fact that both Al Gore and Barack Obama believed in AGW, at least enough to campaign on the issue. Neither did anything substantive to change the AGW-caused warming if such exists - and now under the Trump administration, one has to be disproving AGW to get government R&D money, rather than endorsing the existing fanboy opinion as in the past. Perhaps people will actually start to understand now that more than anything else, the prolonged AGW controversy is political in nature.
Beyond that, the reason that the AGW fanboys are always going to lose, is that they want to shut down our electrical grid and stop burning fuel in vehicles. In other words, they want to kill more than three quarters of the humans on Earth. This is why the rest of us regard them as a lunatic fringe group.
Having said that, I am a believer in doom. The doom I believe in is the one looming in the coming century when we actually run short of coal and oil to burn, and have to make do with feeble replacement energy sources. Because AGW rises to the level of a serious but survivable condition in the worst case, with considerable evidence that says we are well below worst case temperature increases due to negative feedback mechanisms in the global climate. But barring the discovery of new and unprecedented energy sources, the oil peak, followed by the coal peak, is a form of doom difficult to avoid.
These difficulties are also political in nature. The First World countries all have to close their borders, and allow their populations to shrink for at least two centuries. No immigration, legal or otherwise. The Third World has to die back to a sustainable level, without any interference. As many as 1 billion humans MAY be able to live on our planet sustainable fashion, or as few as 125 million.
But we cannot interfere with the correction of human overshoot, or everybody everywhere on Earth dies. YES, I feel horror at the thought. We also need to hedge our bet and populate space, along with however many food species that we need, when we use computers to manage these new artificial homes and produce food within them, using the free and (for practical purposes) unlimited power available outside the atmosphere.
If anybody has better ideas than mine, I'm all ears. But whining about AGW and carbon emissions and scolding people who buy SUVs and pickup trucks is simply not working.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001
Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.
Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0