Science is not decided by consensus. It is decided by empirical
> verification. No scientist I know of claims that the climate change models
> have been verified (indeed they would find it hard to, because most of the
> predicted temperature changes derived from those models that were
> developed
> in the 1990s have already been refuted). When you find perfectly
> respectable
> scientists, with good records of work being dismissed as 'mavericks' and
> 'big oil' mouthpieces, then I think that this is a political consensus
> that
> does not derive from the facts.
This is absolutely typical, and absolute nonsense. The empirical validation for the basic thesis (that the man-made increase in carbon emissions is causing an unsustainable increase in global temperatures) is overwhelming. It only requires that one looks at the evidence instead of avoiding it with a great deal of irrelevant bluster about the global dictatorial anti-progressive conspiracy. Here are some studies and summaries of studies that you can look at which contain precisely such empirical validation:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5732/284
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1313/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/310/5752/1317/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=122
http://amap.no/workdocs/index.cfm?dirsub=%2FACIA%2Foverview
http://www.stabilisation2005.com/Steering_Commitee_Report.pdf
The Royal Society summarises some of the empirical evidence here:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/landing.asp?id=1278
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has presented a wealth of data supporting the thesis.
The line about consensus versus evidence is utterly and intentionally misleading, since the whole reason there is such an unprecedented consensus (beyond the oil lobbies and idiot libertarians) is that the empirical evidence is practically insurmountable. If you know of a good piece of work that is scientifically validated and *doesn't* originate from an industry lobby or an untrustworthy 'maverick', then why don't you go ahead and name it.