It depends on which consensus this is. There is the policy consensus on global warming which is no doubt largely driven by politics rather than science. The scientific consensus though is quite clear. Though there is a small and vocal (and well paid) minority of scientists who completely discount the theory, the vast majority of scientists who have in depth knowledge of the field agree that humans are having a discernible influence on climate. The physics of the matter is quite clear, greenhouse gasses trap outgoing long wave radiation. Without greenhouse gasses the average surface temperature of the Earth would be below freezing. Levels of carbon dioxide and methane are higher than natural levels have been for at least 200,000 years if not 1,000,000. This is due to human peterbation of the carbon cycle. In fact, a really hard theory to prove would be how we do NOT have an effect on climate.
> Those climatologists that failed to
> support the findings of the International Panel on Climate Control were
> denounced in McCarthyite smear campaigns. The panel itself masqueraded
> as a scientific body, but operated not according to the open system of
> peer review but on a committee basis, more akin to the drafting of a
> government document. Rather than winning the argument on the facts, the
> IPCC sought to bludgeon opponents into submission by weight of numbers.
> Signatories to the IPCC report were not necessarily experts in the
> field, but scientists from many different disciplines, their signatures
> reflecting personal beliefs rather than research. Not since the three
> International Congresses of Eugenics met between 1912 and 1932 has
> science been so thoroughly subordinated to political goals.
I do not have any experience with the IPCC. Many of my co-workers do though. I don't recall any claims of poor science which is your claim above. Of course these are scientists dealing with politicians. Who knows what really happened.
>
> The real force driving the International Panel on Climate Control was a
> debate about economics, not climate. The proponents of climate control
> were supporters of a system of managed capitalism; the opponents, free
> marketeers. Scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming gave the
> rationale for managing industrialization. Seen in terms of pollution,
> industrialization - especially in the third world - could be presented
> as a problem, rather than a gain. If, as was argued, permissible CO2
> emissions were limited, then a political system of rationing industrial
> output could be justified.
>
Can you offer some reference or idea of how you came to these conclusions. I just don't see it.
Ken