or maybe wrote:
Your post indicates that you are not very intelligent about science or facts. A consensus doesn't matter. The amount of people believing in something does not determine if something is true or not. [Never mind] that there is not clearly an overwhelming consensus.
I think that this is a reasonable statement.
Yet many people don't have the time and/or education/training and/or funding to investigate major scientific questions themselves. So how to proceed?
Well, one method is to review published research. In this day of the Internet, that's not terribly difficult: research papers (or their abstracts) are frequently available.
Yet are all research papers created equal? I think we'll agree that they are not. Peer-reviewed research, published in major journals, is more likely to be accurate than research published in other sources; and certainly more likely to be accurate than "summaries" that appear in partisan blogs.
"More likely" does not mean "guaranteed," of course; but in science, proof beyond any doubt is rare. We have to go with the preponderance of evidence, and support beyond a *reasonable* doubt--understanding that that nevertheless can be wrong.
If the preponderance of evidence seems to come from the great majority of scholars who are actually trained for and participating in a particular field of inquiry, that adds to the evidence's weight.
So, does a consensus of most actual climate scientists mean that some proposition *must* be true? It does not. It means it's more *likely* to be true than other opinions, and that those other opinions are unlikely to gain many adherents unless they are backed by evidence--and the degree of credibility awarded to such evidence may be affected by consideration of the motives of those offering it.