Global Warmenists argue the scientific consensus supports their claims. In fact no such consensus exists, and if it did, it would not be science.
The UK’s Royal Society, founded in 1662 was once the center of scientific thought but has now fallen to the barbarians:
…the president of the UK’s Royal Society Lord Rees advocates that we should base policy on something called “the scientific consensus”…
But that exactly negates its founding commitment:
The motto of the Royal Society, “Nullius in Verba” (Latin: “On the words of no one”), signifies the Society’s commitment to establishing the truth of scientific matters through experiment rather than through citation of authority.
Here’s John Kay in the Financial Times:
Consensus finds a way through conflicting opinions and interests. Consensus is achieved when the outcome of discussion leaves everyone feeling they have been given enough of what they want.
The processes of proper science could hardly be more different. The accomplished politician is a negotiator, a conciliator, finding agreement where none seemed to exist. The accomplished scientist is an original, an extremist, disrupting established patterns of thought. Good science involves perpetual, open debate, in which every objection is aired and dissents are sharpened and clarified, not smoothed over.
…We do not say that there is a consensus over the second law of thermodynamics, a consensus that Paris is south of London or that two and two are four. We say that these are the way things are…
Statements about the world derive their value from the facts and arguments that support them, not from the status and qualifications of the people who assert them. Evidence versus authority was the issue on which Galileo challenged the church. The modern world exists because Galileo won.
But to use the achievements of science to assert the authority of scientists undermines that very process of science.
The Royal Society is thus a disgrace to science and the Queen should revoke its charter.