Global Consensus

I have been thinking a lot about many of the alarmist endeavours that have consumed society and the press over the last several decades. Global warming feels like one of those situations. We hear much about scientific consensus and that concerns me. Oddly, I found the a comment on this article attached to an article on global warming by a commenter simply named "Mike" and have repeated a portion of it here:

Supporting or believing in [global warming] based on "consesus" is unscientific. Consesus told us that Newtonion physics was the final answer and for awile even Einstein was laughed at when he said it wasn't. Consesus told us that eugenics was sound science and the political advantages that it could provide didn't hurt in obtaining that consesus. Consesus told us that frontal lobotomies and recovered memory syndrome were sound science. Consensus and scientifically accepted methods told us that thalymide(and many other unsafe drugs) were safe. In short consensus isn't science. Peer review does not contest the result of a study based on it's findings. It reviews a study to determine if proper methods of measurement,data aquisition and analysis were used. When consensus is cited as a basis for acceptance it's particularly problematic when such consensus doesn't even exist.

Well put Mike.