>> I suppose that fewer and fewer scientists disagreeing with the status quo is indeed consistent with some kind of widespread and insidious suppression of ideas, >>

See the Tobacco industry.  What is the oil industry worth nowdays?

>> but you know, it is also consistent with having the right answer.

Tell me why, tell me why, if temperature goes up, rainfall goes down ?

Zarkov,

You need to write more explicitly, I still have trouble understanding you points, ie what about the tobacco industry?

tell me why, if temperature goes up, rainfall goes down

Why do you think that?  I don't think it is correct as a general rule.

Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever! -- Anonymous

To first order the dew point increases

An analogy I like to use with people who claim that climate skeptics are being unfairly ignored is the issue of HIV/AIDs.

You'll still find medical professionals out there who claim that HIV doesn't cause AIDs. Does this mean that the rest of the medical profession has to pay attention to their theories or should doctors who agree with the medical consensus just get on with the business of fighting HIV?

Ivriniel

connection, and I`ll show you someone who isn`t a qualified medical doctor.

Almost nobody denies the earth is most likely warming. What they disagree about is what is responsible: Methane, the sun, naturally occuring Co2, man-made, Co2, water vapor, farming, deforestation, etc etc, and to what extent each has an impact. They are all pretty much agreed upon to have a certain amount of influence on temperature. Nobody is pointing at little green aliens or anything equally ridiculous as being responsible. They are disagreeing about mutually agreed upon factors.

What to HIV/AIDS connection deniers point to, voodoo? God`s revenge?

IOW, your analogy is wrong.

Of all the silly arguments for global warming consensus is the same thing as truth simply takes the cake.  Remember how everyone agreed Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction?  How'd relying on that consensus turn out for us?  

Breaking news: "A survey of people who get paid by governments to do climatology research shows that 95% of people think climatology reasearch is totally awesome and should receive even more public funding."  

Scientists are held to--and hold themselves to--higher standards. Unpopular ideas, like handwashing, spread if they turn out to be true. The same is not true of politics. This is why there is a mismatch between the political consensus now (let's do nothing, or talk and do nothing) versus the scientific consensus. WMD was an example of a political consensus uncontaminated by actual facts.

Recall when there was no consensus about what killed the dinosaurs--asteroid strike or volcanoes. Now there's a consensus that it was an asteroid strike. What happened was not a popularity contest or some sort of political putsch, but rather a slow accumulation of facts supporting one side.

In any case, the argument here is not "consensus is the same as truth" but "consensus is not the same as conspiracy". You are responding to an argument that isn't being made. Science is always provisional, and no scientist would say otherwise.