[Pretzel Logic]

Yep. The fact that there is even any ROOM for "consensus" in and of itself indicates that the science is NOT "settled." Established facts don't need a "consensus." Does anyone look at consensus arguments when trying to figure out if the earth is round? Or if gravity exists? Or if the sun is really, really hot?

The very fact that we're even talking about consensus means that we absolutely NEED to continue to allow open debate. Climatology is still in its infancy -- pretending it has more answers than it does is deluded, arrogant, and counterproductive to its own advancement.

The current environment for global warming debate in both the science AND the political community would be more suited to a barroom argument about "which football team is better" than it is for the advancement of science, for crying out loud. A whole lot of chest-beating, threats, and loud, boisterous opinions do NOT make those opinions suddenly become "undisputed facts."

I maintain that if someone is really, truly, and genuinely concerned about the earth's future, then they need to recognize that the only way we're ever going to get to the truth of the matter is to allow science to advance the way science always does: by testing various hypothesis and weighing those against the data. NOT by mocking and silencing any hypothesis that goes against the party line.

After all, many of science's greatest discoveries were initially mocked as outrageous, impossible, and stupid by the "consensus" establishment. This is, of course, not to say that all non-consensus arguments are automatically correct, but they must at least be examined. Not dismissed out of hand. Especially not in a science that is still struggling to understand the basics of itself, the way climatology is.

"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so."

- J.B.S. Haldane