Evidence Trumps the Phony Consensus.
by Viv Forbes
We are lectured monotonously about the “consensus” that carbon dioxide produced by human activities is “highly likely to cause dangerous global warming”. The alarmist computer models are all based on this assumption, with predicted warming multiplied by also assuming strong positive feedbacks.
A consensus of opinion never determines a scientific question – real proof depends on evidence and logic. Consensus is a tool of politics and a guidepost for lemmings.
The so-called “Greenhouse Effect” depends entirely on the known property of carbon dioxide gas to intercept radiant heat in certain wavelengths. This process starts operating as soon as the extra gas enters the atmosphere.
If this influence is strong enough to drive “dangerous global warming”, its effect should be noticeable even in the short term, with Earth’s surface temperature increasing in step with increasing carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing for over a century, but global temperatures have fluctuated in broad cycles decades long, and there has been no warming for the last 17 years.
This evidence suggests that increasing carbon dioxide is not a major driver for dangerous global warming, no matter what the consensus says – even if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
We may still get natural global warming, as the vast restless oceans roll over or the solar cycles change, but man-made carbon dioxide is not driving these processes. Moreover, a bit of warming is not our greatest risk – history shows that ice ages extinguish more species and habitats than warm eras.
The consensus of alarmists is trying to lynch an innocent party.
For those who wish to read more:
No consensus on the Climate Consensus:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/tol-takes-on-cooks-97-consensus-claim-with-a-re-analysis-showing-the-claim-is-unfounded/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
Has the Climate Crusade reached its Waterloo?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/steven-f.-hayward
No Consensus in the Australian Geological Society:
http://us4.campaign-archive1.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=376f6e16bf&e=e1638e04a2
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/earth-scientists-split-on-climate-change-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#
www.cairnsnews.org 
Interesting that you link to Tol’s criticism of Cook et al. Even in Tol’s analysis he gets 91% consensus. Tol has also said “There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.”
It seems that Tol was attempting to nit pick in a “Look at me!” sort of way. Tol’s analysis was simplistic and error ridden however. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jun/05/contrarians-accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus
You are right that science is about evidence and logic, not consensus. Consensus is, however, a good guide for those without the time and resources to become experts. The consensus position is more likely to be right than the tiny minority position.
LikeLike