In case you are wondering what the difference is between the consensus of mainstream science on climate change and the Krazy Konsensus hyperventilating about doom that no-one predicts, I thought I would share an example of the Konsensus here. I may share more later….
It had to come from BBD, of course. And it’s fitting it’s in response to the hyper-reasonable Pekka Perilla. And it’s delicious that it appears on ‘And Then There’s a Physique.’
Climate science can make quantitative projections for the temperature development with wide confidence limits, but estimating the net benefits of specific decisions or policies is very much more difficult, and impossible on objective quantitative level.
While strictly true, this is a formula for justifying inaction and therefore generally false.
The Lukewarmer's Way 
A statement so stupid that even BBD noticed and corrected within 3 minutes.
Of course, the correction says that Pekka’s statement was not “false”, but somehow “unacceptable”, which might actually be a better example of what you call the Konsensus position than the first one.
I enjoy Walter Russel Meade’s take…. To paraphrase, just because you can spot a problem, does not mean you can spot the solution.
After visiting that website I felt like I was touring an intellectual garbage dump. There are occasional items of value to be found in any garbage dump, but it is generally not worth sifting through what the good stuff is buried in.
If ‘formulae for justifying inaction’ are unacceptable, where does this leave the Precautionary Principle?
The whole trouble is that doing at least something is considered better by some people than thinking what good it serves. We have plenty of people who try to save the world by not using plastic bags, Fairy bottles or even toilet paper. If only that energy could be harnessed to do something sensible.