History and future of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming - IOPscience
Contrarian claims that there is no consensus among (serious) scientists regarding AGW can clearly be rejected—as has been done before by many other studies (e.g. Oreskes 2004), as the authors of the present article explicitly note.
Why is this finding important? Climate science is a highly politicized science. Not necessarily because climate scientists are advocates of a particular political mission—most climate scientists I know are in fact quite apolitical people. But the issue they are dealing with is clearly political in nature...if AGW is a fact, and if avoiding dangerous climate change is a meaningful or even necessary goal, then the de-carbonization of the global economy has to be the answer. This does clearly challenge a range of existing practices, routines, business models, and related policies. It does also devaluate—in a very economic sense—formerly very precious assets, such as coal, oil and gas fields. They turn from private goods to public bads...today's contrarians resemble much more the historical adversaries of Galilei or Darwin, often desperately fighting for partial hypotheses while doing away with the balanced empirical evidence of a large community.
...it is not to be expected that the heroic story of a growing consensus in AGW can be replicated.