Your argument is specious: That there is a large “consensus” on anthropogenic global warming, so we should act upon this consensus as we do the consensus of quantum theory is comparing grapes to grapefruit.

The major reason for accepting quantum theory is that, so far, there is absolutely no other principle that works for “small particle” physics.

(Don’t argue with me on that: String Theory meshes well with quantum theory and actually helps to make quantum theory and Einsteinian physics work together)

In any event, unlike quantum physics, there are plenty of other theories out there that work well and for which there is equally large “consensus” (love that word, don’t you?). Theories like solar activity cycles, ocean salinity thermal conveyors, and natural climatological cycles that have absolutely nothing to do with man’s interaction with the environment.

Sorry, bud. There are plenty of other theories being bandied about, and unlike quantum physics AGW is just one of many equally viable theories.

Oh, by the way, the definition of consensus is:

con?sen?sus
? ?/k?n?s?ns?s/
–noun, plural -sus?es.
1. majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2. general agreement or concord; harmony.

As there are thousands of climatologists the world-over who disagree with the IPCC and other AGW “consensus” groups, it’s hardly a “consensus.”

sometime make gross miscalculations. Theories are just that, they are not accepted laws of physics and are not always the final say, theories come closest to providing us as humans the answers to say launch a rocket into space, build lasers,

Netwon law of gravity was practical enough on a small scale to mathematically represent laws of motion and the effects of gravity on falling objects. PE=mgh. Einstien formulated that space and time are dimensions of space and object made of matter consist with in bend the fabric space-time.

Here is my example to compare proven Human cause Global Warming vs. no definitive proof for the effects caused by humans. Let us look at the equation of Kinetic Energy… using E(total)=KE+PE as equations to find energy of a moving or stationary object. This is an application of fundamental laws of physics or theory that works great in the laboratory, unfortunately in the great scheme of things there is the equation E=mc^2. So how can KE and PE be such small numbers compared to E=mc^2. I am trying to illustrate the scope of the use of equations or theories in everyday life that truly can not be used to represent the overall absolute. The Global climate is a dynamic system that relies on too many variables for my to agree with a few models that sets a few factors constant.

Next point Darwin’s work had minimal to no impact on DNA and genetics, cell biology and its founders set the process in motion for DNA and genetics, which without Darwin the study of the cell and its mechanisms would have ultimately led to the founding of DNA and RNA.

Finallhy, there is no such consensus that you speak about, I would venture to say that there are two sides to this story with no real evidence to prove definitively one way or the other. Sorry but no scientist in their right mine can commit on this until they have explained every single mechansism of the earth to inlcude, bio-feedback, chaning currents, solar activity, cyclical nature of the earths climate, plate techtonics, atmospheric constituents changes etc. When the model puts all of these into account in a dynamic model with 1000 supercomputers computing in parallel to account for all of the feedback mechanism of the earth, then tell me what is the human contribution, I am going to lay a theory down that humans at the moment have such a minimal impact that it is miniscule and probably wont register. Anyway, I agree to disagree with you on this one.