Consensus? What Consensus?

An oft repeated line by global warming supporters is that a consensus already exists on the existence of global warming and its relationship to greenhouse gases.

First of all, scientific fact is not determined by consensus. Rather, is it established by the scientific method, by the performance of irrefutable, reproducible scientific experiments that prove a theory. Scientific consensus is often wrong. Major advances in science often challenge and disprove the existing consensus. Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein all challenged orthodox thinking and moved science forward.

Of course, merely saying a consensus exists doesn't make it so. When a true consensus exists, it is not necessary to constantly remind people of it. On a recent trip to my local public library, I looked under call number 363.73874, books about climate change. Of the 22 books on the shelf, 2 books espoused global warming as fact (including Gore's An Inconvenient Truth), 2 presented pro and con arguments, and 18 expressed serious doubts about the existence of global warming.

When a true consensus exists, it isn't even necessary to mention it. For example, I looked in several sections containing books about geography and earth sciences, totaling several hundred books. Of the first 100 books I skimmed, all made direct or indirect reference to the fact the earth was round. Not a single book espoused a flat-earth theory. There wasn't even a pro-con round-flat discourse. No one even referred to the possibility the earth wasn't round. One may therefore conclude that a true consensus exists that the earth is round.