In reference to both the comments up thread, real scientists don't use a "consensus" to bludgeon someone bringing up an inconvenient fact.
WRT to the above, if Foo's proof upon checking turns out not to be correct, real scientists/mathematicians will prefect or throw away the proof, not the check that falsified it.
When someone says "The consensus of climate scientists is that the planet is warming and it is anthropogenic" and it's pointed out that contrary to their very specific predictions the planet has been cooling for the last decade, what do you say real scientists should do?
Point out that we don't have a high confidence time series that says the planet is cooling over the last decade? For that matter, nobody has a 10-year time series for global average temp which passes any real significance test. It's just not a long enough period to deal with high frequency fluctuations: you need 30 or so years for that.
(Actually, to the best of my knowledge, the last decade's average surface temp has been rising, even if the significance is below two-sigma.)
To respond to the general argument, you're absolutely correct. Proofs, statistically rigorous arguments absolutely call into question the consensus. However, vague counterarguments are not sufficient to overturn carefully gathered evidence. One must weigh the arguments on the strength of their evidence and analysis. There is just not very much substantial peer reviewed research supporting a climate model with zero radiative forcing for CO2.
"There is just not very much substantial peer reviewed research supporting a climate model with zero radiative forcing for CO2"
I wonder why that is true? (See the start of this thread if you really wonder why, although I'll add that you just don't get funding if you disagree with the "consensus" (that based off a friend's interview of MIT professor Lindzen at the end of the '80s).)
I agree and have noted elsewhere in this thread that the observations of the last 10 years are not definitive. However, they don't match the confident predictions of the "consensus" and the leaked emails show them quite concerned about that.
Which suggests keeping an open mind about all this instead of declaring the science is settled and using the "consensus" to bludgeon people who disagree, keep them out of the peer reviewed literature, call them "deniers" and call for a new Nuremberg, etc. etc.
WRT to the above, if Foo's proof upon checking turns out not to be correct, real scientists/mathematicians will prefect or throw away the proof, not the check that falsified it.
When someone says "The consensus of climate scientists is that the planet is warming and it is anthropogenic" and it's pointed out that contrary to their very specific predictions the planet has been cooling for the last decade, what do you say real scientists should do?