consensus as in general agreement, as in a majority. Pointing out that some minority group exists is hardly a refutation. Would you not say there is a consensus the Earth is round?
Why should one trust majority, and not minority, if "minority" people are also qualified and respected (Spencer, Curry)? There were episodes in the history of science, when the majority turned out to be wrong.
I won't object to the fact that majorities can be wrong. There are many examples, ancient and recent. But that is a different argument from your other comment.
I trust majority in science because it is rarely wrong. I'd need a bit more than "majorities have been wrong before!" to switch sides.
Which part of the science do you find unconvincing? We have great ice core data going back 1000's of years, the greenhouse effect itself is universally agreed upon and understood, we have a measurable rise in global average temperature over the last 2 centuries, and we see that people are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Solar cycles, volcanoes, and other non-human sources have been refuted and disproved time and time again. only scientists paid to lobby on behalf of the source of warming disagree with the cause. What's missing that could ever convince you?
The CAGW builds upon following argument: increased concentration of CO2 reduces the EM radiation's emission in frequencies that CO2 absorbs, ergo the surface temperature should rise in order to keep Earth's thermodynamic balance.
Increased temperature clearly affects the formation of clouds which have both positive and negative effects: they deflect incoming solar radiation, but also deflect surface radiation. The net effect is unclear, unfortunately.
I'm also quite puzzled by apparent lag between CO2 and temperatures in Vostok ice core data. Contrary to CAGW, temperature rises first, and CO2 follows.
My layman understanding is quite limited, of course, that's why eventually I go to the scientists for their expertise. I don't believe that all opponents of CAGW theory are shills; some of them are very respected people: Lindzen, Spencer, etc. My only conclusion is that science is not settled and CAGW is still an unconfirmed hypothesis.
ACC doesn't build upon the hypothesis that CO2 reduces the energy emission. The underpinning is the greenhouse effect whereby gasses, particularly CO2 prevent heat absorbed by the Earth's surface from radiating back out into space. Only about 26% of the Sun's energy is reflected by clouds or the atmosphere. CO2 concentration increases heat retention but not cloud albedo(reflectiveness) nor atmospheric reflectiveness.
Cloud formation is not related to CO2. CO2 is the primary factor driving the greenhouse effect. In fact research is beginning to show that a warmer planet may have lower cloud cover [1][2]. There is no cloud controversy, you are literally making that up.
Here's one example:
https://www.insidescience.org/news/scientific-consensus-almo...