Reach for your wallet.
"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." -- Michael Crichton
It is a false comparison to equate the corrupt world of the barely emerged non-scientific political discipline of 'climate science' with established disciplines. It is true that Biologists almost universally support the Theory of Evolution and that there is a genuine, bona-fide, fact based consensus that Evolution is fundamentally correct. It is generally *NOT* true that they bully non-believers with this 'consensus', even though Evolution, as Ashley Montague has said, is "the most thoroughly authenticated fact in the whole history of science". We present our evidence and logical arguments over and over again ... because we have them to present. See here for an overview: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
The Theory of Evolution is not correct because there is a consensus; there is a consensus because it is (for this discussion) correct. Unlike the religion of 'Climate Science', Biology actually does have overwhelming evidence, a bona-fide consensus about fundamentals (some things upon which even creationists agree), a logical argument you can follow and tidy integration with the rest of the maths and sciences. If you look at established disciplines like Math, Physics, Chemistry and Biology they abound with people eager to explain. They want you to stop and look. By way of contrast, you are always being told by climate alarmists to move along. "Nothing to see here". "Trust us, we're scientists".
Skeptics keep saying, "wait, let's look". They keep saying "show us". They keep pointing out how the climate religion fails to integrate with both the body of scientific thought (hint 'climate science' is not part of that) and common sense (follow your own common sense on that). Alarmists keep saying they do not want to talk any more about 'settled science'. They keep saying "nothing to see here" and "move along". They will not present evidence and the more you ask for it the more hysterical they become.
The 'hockey stick' graph (the original, not the new one they switched out at Wikipedia) does not pass the 'smell test' for someone with a real background in science. It nullified the well established MWP and the LIA using arbitrary (and proven incorrect) data manipulation. It looked uncharacteristic and suspicious and it was. When called to task, they quietly swept that under the rug, modified their methods and the MWP and LIA magically re-appeared. Quel surprise. Of course, when a discussion about the fundamental dishonesty of the hockey stick comes up they revel in presenting a different graph and pointing out how they were correct all along. However many layers they put on this onion, whenever you peel those layers back, you always find corruption.
There is a *TON* of lipstick on 'Climate Science'. It surprisingly gets a lot of dates; but it is still a pig.
It is highly instructive to look at the old and new batches of 'Climategate' email. You will see the fatal corruption and dishonesty that lies at the heart of the (rather small) 'Climate Science' cabal. They are so bad, that they have difficulty spinning it. In many instances, they honestly cannot see they are doing anything wrong. For them, the ends justify the means; even though the desirability of the ends is uncertain at best.
Respectable scientists do not have to depend upon your trust and they do not have to pretend that the political and social enterprise of organized establishment science is somehow magical and beyond inspection or reproach. Ask a Biologist, Chemist, Physicist for proof, they will show it to you. When it comes to Mathematicians, the proof itself is what they have to show. Ask a 'Climate Scientist' for proof and what you get is an irritating lesson in sophistry. I wanted to itemize the logical fallacies they indulge in, but there are just too many. The ill-named 'climate science' is an absolute 'tour-de-force' in dishonest argument.
Here is how 'consensus' works in the topsy-turvy world of 'Climate Science':
Mr. Mann called upon his colleagues to try and put Climate Research out of business. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," he wrote in one of the emails. "We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
After Messrs. Jones and Mann threatened a boycott of publications and reviews, half the editorial board of Climate Research resigned. People who didn't toe Messrs. Wigley, Mann and Jones's line began to experience increasing difficulty in publishing their results.
This happened to me and to the University of Alabama's Roy Spencer, who also hypothesized that global warming is likely to be modest. Others surely stopped trying, tiring of summary rejections of good work by editors scared of the mob. Sallie Baliunas, for example, has disappeared from the scientific scene.
GRL is a very popular refereed journal. Mr. Wigley was concerned that one of the editors was "in the skeptics camp." He emailed Michael Mann to say that "if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official . . . channels to get him ousted."
Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Wigley on Nov. 20, 2005 that "It's one thing to lose 'Climate Research.' We can't afford to lose GRL." In this context, "losing" obviously means the publication of anything that they did not approve of on global warming.
Soon the suspect editor, Yale's James Saiers, was gone. Mr. Mann wrote to the CRU's Phil Jones that "the GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there."
From: "How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus" by PATRICK J. MICHAELS