[NamTaf]

Why is it a problem to discuss consensus if the consensus is from educated parties and founded on empirical evidence supporting the consensus? Challenging the status quo is fine if you have data to back up your assertions but that isn't what happens in the most case. With the issue being so politicised, data is no longer the ultimate trump card. That's the problem.

Regarding the sources, they're simply the first that I find when I search for information I've previously read and want to reference. I applaud your effort to source thoroughly cited references on points you present, but unfortunately when I'm reading HN between my day job I don't have the same time to build an equally bulletproof case.

FWIW, I don't hold a particular view either way on what you cited. I haven't read it enough. I'm sorry that I can't comment specifically on it.

[marknutter]

> Why is it a problem to discuss consensus if the consensus is from educated parties and founded on empirical evidence supporting the consensus?

When people talk about general relativity they don't refer to the scientific consensus behind the theory? It stands up to scrutiny because there are numerous reproducible experiments lending to its validity along with some very solid mathematics to back it up. The science behind climate change is very hard to create experiments for, however, and so we must lean heavily on computer simulated models (which, by the way, are rarely used to prove much of anything in the hard sciences). Thus, you hear a lot more about "consensus" than you would otherwise.