One of the most ludicrous arguments climate alarmists make is that those they deem “climate deniers” should not be allowed to air their views because 97% of climate scientists agree man-made global warming is real.

One of the most alarming developments in media coverage of this issue is that many journalists agree with them.

For today’s purpose, let’s concede the 97% “consensus” figure is accurate, even though, rather than a scientific survey of climate scientists themselves, this number typically comes from studies that do key word searches on academic papers, looking for such phrases as “global warming” or “global climate change”.

The real point is that even assuming the 97% figure is accurate, there are many things about climate change on which there is no scientific consensus.

For example, there is no consensus among climate scientists that anthropological climate change represents an imminent, existential threat to humanity, contrary to the beliefs of the famous non-scientist, U.S. President Barack Obama.

To cite one of many examples, Obama tweeted (or rather, someone on his staff tweeted in his name) on May 16, 2013 to his 60 million followers that: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous”, containing a link to a Reuters story.

But nowhere does that article, in citing the 97% consensus figure, claim 97% of climate scientists agree global warming is “dangerous.”

The article never mentions the word “dangerous”, or any word like it.

Similarly, there is no consensus among climate scientists on whether it is necessary, as the world’s most famous climate alarmist and non-scientist Al Gore insists, for the U.S. to abandon using coal to produce electricity by 2018, which he called for in 2008.

Since the U.S. gets 39% of its electricity from coal, that would in fact be very dangerous for millions of Americans, given how much it would drive up the cost of electricity, forcing millions of people into fuel poverty, where one has to pay more than 10% of one’s income, simply to power one’s home.

Nor is there any scientific consensus on what the rate of warming will be over the next century.

Climate models in fact predict a wide range of possible scenarios, although media typically report on only the most extreme, worse-case scenarios.

Nor is there any consensus among climate scientists on whether, or when, the world should abandon fossil fuel use.

Nor on how fast anthropological climate change is occurring and what its precise effects will be regionally and globally.

Or on whether carbon pricing schemes such as cap-and-trade and carbon taxes will slow the growth of industrial greenhouse gas emissions.

Real-world experience with carbon taxes and cap-and-trade suggests neither are effective or efficient in reducing emissions and only “work” insofar as they make everyone poorer, thus having less money to spend on goods and services produced through the use of fossil fuel energy.

The final point is that regardless of any consensus among climate scientists, it is not for them to decide how we should live our lives or how governments should tax us.

Indeed, if they want to do that, and some clearly do, then they should get out of their labs and off their speaking tours, and run for political office.