Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
Hard to argue with that one. Scott Adams has another fine rebuttal: How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate ChangeHe explains why it is naive to believe AGW proponents on the reality of AGW - and even more naive to accept the posited seriousness of AGW.