How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[dre]

Ah. Bad example. CERN now has data that cosmic rays can create clouds and the effect could be large enough to have a theoretical effect on climate. http://calderup.wordpress.com/

In any case, we want and need scientists that are single minded and obessive about their theories. These are the types of people that often discover the greatest breakthroughs. What we also need are science administrators that value debate and guard against group think and provide space for mavericks with plausible ideas that go against the consensus. The latter is missing in climate science.

The latter is missing in climate science.

No... it really isnt, sorry.

[TimG]

No... it really isnt, sorry.

You are entitled to your opinion even if it has no basis in reality.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, you're asking me how I formed my opinions when the process began over 40 years ago! I'm afraid I don't have an eidetic memory! I'll make an effort for you, however.

I appreciate it.

First off, I guess it started with the "Man is triggering an Ice Age!" folks back in the late 60's and early 70's. Now, I know you have claimed that this was never an "official" position but I was there! It was all over the media, from newspapers to books to television. Don't bother asking me for a cite. The Internet wasn't even imagined back then! I still have many books and magazines from that time but I'll be damned if I'll spend the time making it a big research project to settle some points in this thread! I'm too busy trying to make a living.

I remember that in the media - but that's not saying that it was something that there was significant scientific support for.

Anyhow, these articles never impressed me with the science of their claims. They seemed to be shy on specific evidence and long on "Man is bad and should do things our way!" It was the start of mixing politics with science, which is like oil and water if you are seeking truth.

Good - there was never significant support for it. You were correct to doubt the media coverage of this.

I guess it was as the 90's started rolling that the same sort of hype began again in the media, only this time it was all about Global Warming. Instead of freezing to death, apparently we were all going to fry! Again, the scientific part of the arguments seemed always to be rather thin. They may or may not have been true. I never really got that far! Virtually all of it seemed steeped in leftwing politics! It was really all about transferring money from the Free World to the Third World countries.

It was all about how the "rich" countries had ruined the planet and owed it to the lesser developed countries to give them massive amounts of foreign aid.

When Kyoto happened I actually downloaded the thing and read it from stem to stern. Did you ever actually read it, Michael? If not, you really should. It was ALL about money transfer! It was just warmed over collectivist crap! All the former communist or socialist fanatics had been cut adrift when the USSR ended. Now they appeared to have a new manifesto!

Worse yet, Kyoto had zip all about auditing the money transfers! We were to just hand it over to any third world dictator and take his word for it that he would spend the money on "green" projects and not on guns and ammo.

I'm NOT exaggerating, Michael! Read it for yourself!

I've already said that policy needs a separate discussion. I'm still waiting to hear about the science though...

THAT'S why I refuse to agree with it, Michael! I will not waste my time learning and debating all the "science" of the debate. I don't share the urgency in the first place and I don't respect the opposition's character in the second!

It's very strange. Although you recognize that science isn't really followed in any of this, you react by refusing to learn and debate "science". Your disgust with politics is causing you to fall into its trap and not listen to science.

You wanted me to tell you how I came to my opinions and I have done that. That's all the energy and time I care to contribute. There's other subjects in other threads that interest me more and I can only spare so much for any of them.

Fair enough. I will chalk this up to yet another person who wasn't well served by the media and was never shown the science clearly. Instead, you were served what media needs - endless fighting and emotional arguing. And why not ? Who wants to turn on the TV and have people calmly explaining boring facts ?

Much better to have a hippie and a guy in a business suit yelling over each other - more people can relate to that and pick a side.

[dre]

You are entitled to your opinion even if it has no basis in reality.

And youre entitled to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Even if the conspirators only exist in magical Timmy land

[TimG]

And youre entitled to your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. Even if the conspirators only exist in magical Timmy land

Ah yes. The 'anyone who disagrees with is a nutcase' style of debate. A tactic that invariably leads to insults and is generally a waste of time.

[dre]

Ah yes. The 'anyone who disagrees with is a nutcase' style of debate. A tactic that invariably leads to insults and is generally a waste of time.

No diferent than saying someone elses opinion has no basis in reality. The diference of course being that youre alledging a vast global conspiracy that includes scientists, goverments, scientific journals, and just about everyone else as well. Apparently theyre all communists

[TimG]

The diference of course being that youre alledging a vast global conspiracy...

Actually, I am not. That is narrative you invented. All that I am saying is scientists are human and subject to the biases, peer pressure and a need to ensure employment like anyone else. You are the one who is making the extremely implausible claim that scientists are not affected by these things.

[dre]

Actually, I am not. That is narrative you invented. All that I am saying is scientists are human and subject to the biases, peer pressure and a need to ensure employment like anyone else. You are the one who is making the extremely implausible claim that scientists are not affected by these things.

You ARENT just talking about scientists, and humans and bias. Youre talking about SYSTEMIC bias on one topic towards one position.

And your attacks on empyrical evidence and reason go beyond just global warming. In the crime thread we were posting in the other day you basically flat out dismissed the idea that we should study the data because you claimed - people will just always cherry pick the data to support their conclusion.

You dont just have contempt for AGW scientists or the idea that our laws oughta be informed by carefully collecting data and studying and benchmarking. You have contempt for the scientific method itself, and the way we use it to aquire knowledge and suspicion.

The AGW debate is an example of the system working. We have learned more about our climate in the last couple of decades than ever before, and we are starting to collect and organize the data way better which will help us in the future. We have brought considerable resources to bear and some of our brightest minds are giving it an honest effort and doing the hard work to figure this stuff out. And various diferent interests are tapping resources to try to find a smoking gun that proves the other side is wrong.

Pretty soon I predict the the science will be good enough for me to get off the fence.

Edited August 10, 2011 by dre

[TimG]

In the crime thread we were posting in the other day you basically flat out dismissed the idea that we should study the data because you claimed - people will just always cherry pick the data to support their conclusion.

This is not a claim of a systematic bias towards one position. It is a cynical and accurate statement about soft sciences where empirical facts are largely just opinion. You need to wake up and understand the limitations of science when it comes to these issues. Determining the effect of government policies is NOT the same as measuring the gravitational constant. Studies in the soft sciences really should be treated as opinion.

You have contempt for the scientific method itself, and the way we use it to acquire knowledge and suspicion.

Not true. I put a lot of value in the scientific method as described by people like Feynman and Popper. The problem is the humans in positions where they are supposed to be using it often let priorities other than good science colour their conclusions. I also have no interest in people who bastardize Kuhn and confuse a "paradigm" with a fact.

The AGW debate is an example of the system working.

Sorry. The system has completely failed us when it comes to AGW. We know less about climate than you think and the systematic use of "climate models" which quantify dodgy assumptions has created the illusion that we know more than we do. In climate science, the obsession with finding a "consensus" to drive a political agenda has stifled alternate angles of research and led to deliberate suppression of ideas. Any success in getting alternate ideas out there has been in spite of system - not because of it. Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

This is not a claim of a systematic bias towards one position. It is a cynical and accurate statement about soft sciences where empirical facts are largely just opinion. You need to wake up and understand the limitations of science when it comes to these issues. Determining the effect of government policies is NOT the same as measuring the gravitational constant. Studies in the soft sciences really should be treated as opinion.

Your point is good - noting that the physical sciences are not soft sciences.

Sorry. The system has completely failed us when it comes to AGW. We know less about climate than you think and the systematic use of "climate models" which quantify dodgy assumptions has created the illusion that we know more than we do. In climate science, the obsession with finding a "consensus" to drive a political agenda has stifled alternate angles of research and led to deliberate suppression of ideas. Any success in getting alternate ideas out there has been in spite of system - not because of it.

Why can't you separate the science from the policy ? Why can't anybody do this ?

Are you aware that scientists accused in Climategate have also spoken out against extreme environmentalist statements ?

If we don't even TRY for objectivity, we may as well go back to the days of wizards and divining rods.

[TimG]

Why can't you separate the science from the policy ? Why can't anybody do this ?

I try to separate science from policy. I have often said that even though I have little confidence in the climate science I could be persuaded to support CO2 mitigation if there was a policy option that had a chance of making of difference. So far all of the policy options which are acceptable to greens appear to be an expensive waste of resources.

Are you aware that scientists accused in Climategate have also spoken out against extreme environmentalist statements ?

And others, like Mann, are out there flogging the Greenpeace political agenda.

I am not sure what your point is.

If we don't even TRY for objectivity, we may as well go back to the days of wizards and divining rods.

What I am arguing for is more cynicism when it comes to scientific results. We can strive for objectivity but we should not assume that objectivity is the default output of the science system we have in place. We need to do better at acknowledging the social and economic pressures that colour all human science no matter where it is produced. We need to expunge the word "consensus" from our scientific vocabulary. I prefer the word "dominant paradigm". We need to create a space for mavericks that dispute the dominant paradigm and not vilify them as stooges of the oil companies. Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

And others, like Mann, are out there flogging the Greenpeace political agenda.

I am not sure what your point is.

My point is that some scientists are trying to be objective and NOT automatically supporting environmentalism as is alleged on this thread.

What I am arguing for is more cynicism when it comes to scientific results. We can strive for objectivity but we should not assume that objectivity is the default output of the science system we have in place. We need to do better at acknowledging the social and economic pressures that colour all human science no matter where it is produced. We need to expunge the word "consensus" from our scientific vocabulary. I prefer the word "dominant paradigm".

There is a vigorous debate in the subject of AGW, and yet the public is largely unaware of that, and unaware of the real issues. I submit that a new link between science and the public needs to be created - because our media doesn't fill that gap well.

Consensus does not need to be expunged. That would cause us to belabour things that we already know are true.

[TimG]

My point is that some scientists are trying to be objective and NOT automatically supporting environmentalism as is alleged on this thread.

You will have to give me examples. One can critize the extreme statements of environmentalists yet still be baised towards a specific policy agenda.

There is a vigorous debate in the subject of AGW, and yet the public is largely unaware of that, and unaware of the real issues.

You are taking this on faith and have no data to support your claim. I see the debate within scientific circles is being suppressed by activists in positions of authority. It is not 100% but it is enough to make life really difficult for scientists who dont toe the "consensus" line. It also means that pro-consensus scientists are allowed to publish junk and circulate lies while the journal editors sit on their thumbs.

Consensus does not need to be expunged. That would cause us to belabour things that we already know are true.

We need to separate those facts which are truely known and those which are nothing but assumptions used to support the current paradigm. Too often people claim assumptions as facts. Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

You will have to give me examples. One can critize the extreme statements of environmentalists yet still be baised towards a specific policy agenda.

Email from Tom Wigley

When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make

categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such

statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what

they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,

in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than

the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I

find this extremely disturbing.

Tom Wigley

Now of course, you can rightly say "so what ? he is so biased that he doesn't realize that he is"

This is the problem. If we don't have basic faith that people like this are trying to form opinions based on objective data, then we are saying that objectivity can't really exist. We therefore have no common ground on which to build consensus.

If it's not possible for hard science, then it's definitely not possible for soft sciences - sociology, or even economics. The logical conclusion is that the way forward will be decided by a fight, by mob rule, by any other means than reason.

You are taking this on faith and have no data to support your claim. I see the debate within scientific circles is being suppressed by activists in positions of authority. It is not 100% but it is enough to make life really difficult for scientists who dont toe the "consensus" line. It also means that pro-consensus scientists are allowed to publish junk and circulate lies while the journal editors sit on their thumbs.

Utter crap M&M are not even climate scientists, so the degree to which their papers are being considered is beyond what is called for. There are hundreds, thousands of scientists and papers that support AGW, and yet we can't get beyond this criticism from two individuals outside the field. Even so, their papers have been published, reviewed and criticized and some of their criticisms adopted.

Furthermore, their opinions have a significant impact on public opinion - causing many to think that there isn't consensus within climate science.

How is this suppressing ?

We need to separate those facts which are truely known and those which are nothing but assumptions used to support the current paradigm. To often people claim assumptions as facts.

You will never have 100% certainty. If you want 90% or 95% or 99% certainty before moving forward, then we have that in this example.

[TimG]

Email from Tom Wigley

Great. Wigley is a rarity in the field.

This is the problem. If we don't have basic faith that people like this are trying to form opinions based on objective data, then we are saying that objectivity can't really exist. We therefore have no common ground on which to build consensus.

We have a court system where the purpose is to find the objective truth but do it via a process where the actors are expected to be biased. i.e. the defence lawyer and prosecutor are not expected to objectively analyze facts and come to a consensus. They are expected to be subjective and use evidence to put their best case forward. The judge and jury then make a decision with the knowledge that both parties have slanted the evidence to suit them.

Do you think the court system does not work? Why can't science move forward if we assume the advocates are biased and not objective?

Utter crap M&M are not even climate scientists, so the degree to which their papers are being considered is beyond what is called for.

You are showing how you are part of the problem. First, who cares that they are not career scientists? The truth is the truth correct? Why do credentials matter? Second, they get attention because they exposed the sickness within our scientific institutions. If, back in 2003, the scientific community had responded by thanking them for the effort and withdrawing Mann's junk papers then we would not likely know them today. Instead, they were viciously attacked and all of their criticism was rejected.

Anyone who cares about science should be appalled at the way the MM story played out.

You will never have 100% certainty. If you want 90% or 95% or 99% certainty before moving forward, then we have that in this example.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if there is not 100% certainty then don't call it a fact. Don't denigrate people who seek to challenge the paradigm because you can't know they are wrong. Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

We have a court system where the purpose is to find the objective truth but do it via a process where the actors are expected to be biased. i.e. the defence lawyer and prosecutor are not expected to objectively analyze facts and come to a consensus. They are expected to be subjective and use evidence to put their best case forward. The judge and jury then make a decision with the knowledge that both parties have slanted the evidence to suit them.

That's very similar to science - the case made is based on facts. The jury is presumably open minded and needs to be convinced either way.

Do you think the court system does not work? Why can't science move forward if we assume the advocates are biased and not objective?

People arrive at the scene of the climate controversy with their minds made up - because the issues are painted in the colours of identity, by media who can only portray such things for the conflict appeal.

You are showing how you are part of the problem. First, who cares that they are not career scientists?

The truth is the truth correct? Why do credentials matter?

The system requires that issues be debated by people with the requisite knowledge that comes from specializing in that type of science. If that doesn't happen, then you will waste time with invalid criticisms, which seems to be what is happening here.

You will have people making broad accusations of cover up by holding up insignificant items that the public can't evaluate.

Second, they get attention because they exposed the sickness within our scientific institutions.

I think that the sickness IS the fact that they received undue attention.

If, back in 2003, the scientific community had responded by thanking them for the effort and withdrawing Mann's junk papers then we would not likely know them today. Instead, they were viciously attacked and all of their criticism was rejected.

The papers were never withdrawn - slight changes were made and the original papers are still accepted.

Anyone who cares about science should be appalled at the way the MM story played out.

I'm appalled that there is no bridge between the broad public and the scientific community.

That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if there is not 100% certainty then don't call it a fact. Don't denigrate people who seek to challenge the paradigm because you can't know they are wrong.

100% certainty is never there. It's ridiculous to hold back the debate because of a handful of dissenters, and it's a travesty that the public doesn't understand that is happening.

[TimG]

That's very similar to science - the case made is based on facts. The jury is presumably open minded and needs to be convinced either way.

That is not the way it works according to you. You expect the "jury" (the public) to treat scientific experts as unbaised and objective. I am saying the "jury" should assume the experts are baised.

The system requires that issues be debated by people with the requisite knowledge that comes from specializing in that type of science.

A guild mentality designed to protect incumbants. No one can credibibly argue that McIntrye and McKitrick did not have the knowledge required to argue the points that they argued. By arguing that you are simply showing that you are ignorant of the issues and that you are part of the problem.

The papers were never withdrawn - slight changes were made and the original papers are still accepted.

You don't have a clue what goes on. Papers are withdrawn all of the time when they have egregious errors. Here is an example of a paper being withdrawn because the conclusions of the paper can no longer be supported by the evidence in the paper (exactly what happened with MBH)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

It's ridiculous to hold back the debate because of a handful of dissenters, and it's a travesty that the public doesn't understand that is happening.

Hold back what debate? We are having plenty of debate. What is happening is the public is not buying into useless CO2 mitigation schemes but that has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the fact that the schemes won't work. Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

I remember that in the media - but that's not saying that it was something that there was significant scientific support for.

Good - there was never significant support for it. You were correct to doubt the media coverage of this.

It's very strange. Although you recognize that science isn't really followed in any of this, you react by refusing to learn and debate "science". Your disgust with politics is causing you to fall into its trap and not listen to science.

Fair enough. I will chalk this up to yet another person who wasn't well served by the media and was never shown the science clearly. Instead, you were served what media needs - endless fighting and emotional arguing. And why not ? Who wants to turn on the TV and have people calmly explaining boring facts ?

You are trying to fit me to a caricature that serves your argument. You are wrong!

First off, there WAS significant high-level support for the new Ice Age theory! I never mentioned the Club of Rome and "The Limits of Growth" but there was the same swallowing of the Kool Aid by politicians, scientific spokespeople and other policy makers.

I have a complete set of "Omni" magazine, from issue #1 to the last. There's all kinds of info there that overwhelmingly supports this point, from that tme period. There's a few "Scientific American" issues in the mix as well. If you'll pay the shipping, they're all yours!

I probably buy at least 2 or 3 science books a month. I have an extensive library. I visit various sites on the Internet every day, starting with The Daily Grail. Don't try to tell me I "refuse to learn and debate science". Do YOU read and follow as much as I do? How big is YOUR library in this area? Please don't patronize me unless you have been at it as long and as deeply as I have.

"Refusing to learn science"? Michael, I learn and have learned science constantly every day of my life! It's been my passion since before I went to school, when I first learned to read! I just refuse to waste my time on the climate debate. How many Watchtower magazines do you expect someone to read before he refuses to read any more? Everybody thinks that their POV is new and worth consideration. I've been there and gotten the tee shirt. If I sniff even the slightest hint of leftwing politics I refuse to waste my time any further.

"Never well served by the media"? Who says the mainstream media was my only source of information? What's more, it took me a couple of DECADES before I decided to just give up!Surely over 20 years is a fair look at the alarmist claims! I didn't just watch one or two NOVA PBS specials and then make up my mind!

I LIKE PBS specials! Long ones, with "people calmly explaining lots of boring facts"!

[Michael Hardner]

That is not the way it works according to you. You expect the "jury" (the public) to treat scientific experts as unbaised and objective. I am saying the "jury" should assume the experts are baised.

They are pursuing their own hypothesis - but I don't accept that that constitutes a 'bias'.

You don't have a clue what goes on. Papers are withdrawn all of the time when they have egregious errors. Here is an example of a paper being withdrawn because the conclusions of the paper can no longer be supported by the evidence in the paper (exactly what happened with MBH)

MBH was withdrawn ?

Hold back what debate? We are having plenty of debate. What is happening is the public is not buying into useless CO2 mitigation schemes but that has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the fact that the schemes won't work.

That is the debate we SHOULD be having, but there are still significant numbers of people who are debating old news - that warming exists, for example.

[Wild Bill]

That's very similar to science - the case made is based on facts. The jury is presumably open minded and needs to be convinced either way.

This is a very poor metaphor, Michael. You still seem to be hung up on "consensus". Who CARES what the jury finds? A scientific premise is either true or false. It can seem true within the limits of our understanding at a given time and later be proven false but that is far different from having a jury decide what facts are true.

Consensus is irrelevant to science! Tell it to Galileo! We've had times where the consensus was that the Earth was flat or that everything in space orbits the Earth.

Millions of people believe in astrology!

You're wasting your time on this consensus thing.

[TimG]

They are pursuing their own hypothesis - but I don't accept that that constitutes a 'bias'.

I know you don't. I am arguing that scientists should be presumed to be biased and the institutions we have to govern science also have their own biases. This does not mean science is useless - it just means one must factor in the bias when assessing claims that are largely subjective interpretations of evidence.

MBH was withdrawn

It has been shown that the conclusions of MBH cannot be supported by the analysis in the paper. By that measure the papers should have been withdrawn.

That is the debate we SHOULD be having, but there are still significant numbers of people who are debating old news - that warming exists, for example.

There is often a disconnect between what is said and what people mean because over the top rhetoric gets more attention than measured statements. When people argue the science or say it a hoax what they really mean is the threat is being exaggerated and they reject the policy options which are being put on the table.

[Michael Hardner]

You are trying to fit me to a caricature that serves your argument. You are wrong!

Sorry - I am reading your words and making conclusions based on them.

First off, there WAS significant high-level support for the new Ice Age theory!

That is incorrect. I have seen analysis of the climate science at that time and even then there were more papers published saying that warming was happening. Did you know that ?

Where there WAS significant support for the ice age was on the cover of Newsweek magazine.

I never mentioned the Club of Rome and "The Limits of Growth" but there was the same swallowing of the Kool Aid by politicians, scientific spokespeople and other policy makers.

Ok - but this is policy not science.

I have a complete set of "Omni" magazine, from issue #1 to the last. There's all kinds of info there that overwhelmingly supports this point, from that tme period. There's a few "Scientific American" issues in the mix as well. If you'll pay the shipping, they're all yours!

Omni magazine was a pop-science magazine and not a respected scientific journal.

I probably buy at least 2 or 3 science books a month. I have an extensive library. I visit various sites on the Internet every day, starting with The Daily Grail. Don't try to tell me I "refuse to learn and debate science". Do YOU read and follow as much as I do? How big is YOUR library in this area? Please don't patronize me unless you have been at it as long and as deeply as I have.

I don't know science, so I follow debates on here and elsewhere that refer to the science.

Please don't be offended by my take on where you get your information. After all, I asked you several times to explain it and your response isn't that different from mine.

What I found several years ago was that the media wasn't adequately explaining what was going on in the field of climate science. They are too sensationalist, and too prone to leaving loose ends on fake controversies such as Climategate.

"Refusing to learn science"? Michael, I learn and have learned science constantly every day of my life! It's been my passion since before I went to school, when I first learned to read! I just refuse to waste my time on the climate debate. How many Watchtower magazines do you expect someone to read before he refuses to read any more? Everybody thinks that their POV is new and worth consideration. I've been there and gotten the tee shirt. If I sniff even the slightest hint of leftwing politics I refuse to waste my time any further.

Sorry to offend you. I can only ask you, and summarize your responses.

Again, I blame the media for not providing a good link for you (or for me) to the real science.

"Never well served by the media"? Who says the mainstream media was my only source of information? What's more, it took me a couple of DECADES before I decided to just give up!Surely over 20 years is a fair look at the alarmist claims! I didn't just watch one or two NOVA PBS specials and then make up my mind!

You didn't outline any other sources of information here:

First off, I guess it started with the "Man is triggering an Ice Age!" folks back in the late 60's and early 70's. Now, I know you have claimed that this was never an "official" position but I was there! It was all over the media, from newspapers to books to television.

And the fact that you fell for the bogus 'Ice Age' red herring tells me that you (like me) got duped by media into thinking that they do a good job of reporting science.

I recommend Wikipedia over any mainstream newspaper even. They have to provide cites, and they are keenly watched by people on both sides of the debate.

[Michael Hardner]

There is often a disconnect between what is said and what people mean because over the top rhetoric gets more attention than measured statements. When people argue the science or say it a hoax what they really mean is the threat is being exaggerated and they reject the policy options which are being put on the table.

If that is indeed the case, then I'm fine with moving on to the policy debate (I think there's even another thread on that topic). My concern, though, is that there is such a huge disconnect between the science and the media (see WB's posts regarding Omni magazine, and mass media) that people get confused over.

And spreading confusion has been identified as a key strategy to those who are trying to block policy change, to take the winds out of the sails of the scientific debate before the policy debate is questioned.

some 'soft science' - Merchants of Doubt

[Michael Hardner]

This is a very poor metaphor, Michael. You still seem to be hung up on "consensus". Who CARES what the jury finds?

That's a strange thought. Who cares what they find ? We do ! Those findings represent knowledge and progress.

A scientific premise is either true or false. It can seem true within the limits of our understanding at a given time and later be proven false but that is far different from having a jury decide what facts are true.

Ok, this is a good point but I don't dispute this.

Consensus is irrelevant to science! Tell it to Galileo! We've had times where the consensus was that the Earth was flat or that everything in space orbits the Earth.

You're wasting your time on this consensus thing.

Not at all. Once scientists were convinced that smoking causes cancer (despite all efforts of the tobacco industry to trip up the science) then society made moves to discourage it - to improve peoples' lives.

[TimG]

I recommend Wikipedia over any mainstream newspaper even. They have to provide cites, and they are keenly watched by people on both sides of the debate.

Wikipedia has a cabal of editors that are alarmist fanatics. They have worn down skeptics who have given up trying to correct for balance. So wikipedia articles on climate are usually skewed.