Re: No Surprise
You are doing science a severe dis-service by suggesting anything about consensus, that is a political concept, not a scientific one. If you wish to make a political point that is fine but you must not attempt to justify it by pseudo-scientific clap trap, such as this "consensus". Climate change due to man and industrial CO2 is a theory which has been shown by events (the last 17 years) to have no reasonable grounds for its claims. It has been shown to be in error, so should be forgotten, or modified to match the facts as discovered by experiment. The claim was based on computer modelling, which is shown to have been incomplete, inaccurate and incorrect in its action and prediction. I would like to read your PhD thesis and consider how the research you carried out, presumably modelling, as your attitude suggests that you could not be very interested in actual experiments, as the results might not match your political view. Even the highly complex computer models used for weather (not climate) forecasting show accuracy periods of a few hours, and deviate from calculated results in significant ways thereafter.
We now see wild theories being produced which are trying to justify the differences between the models and reality, and far too much data "bending" and "correction" to attempt to justify the previously announced results which were given the completely false name of "facts". The "consensus" you claim is not representing the facts as exposed, it is a political group trying to keep its reputation despite being shown to be severely incompetent, particularly in the application of the scientific method which is: theory, supporting real experimental data (not computer models), full understanding of the limitations of the theory, and then publication for comment by any interested party; the whole thing being subject to disproof at any time by anyone, only a single piece of evidence being required!
It could be that your knowledge of the climate in the carboniferous period (real Palaeoclimatology) tells you that high CO2 levels must be inherently self correcting, but still you follow this "consensus" that the world will end unless the population becomes tiny and we return to the stone age - this does not form any kind of logical reasoning to my mind and again can only come from politics rather than science, very similar to the select committee in fact!