AS FAR AS HE GOES: because a bunch of scientists agree on a particular explanation for a given fact pattern does not ipso facto make that explanation true. Right. Correct. Dispositive.
But wait! There’s more!
Despite the claim of consensus, there is no such thing. Consensus does not mean “the majority agree.” It means “everybody agrees.” This is a phenomenon that almost never occurs. To claim such a thing without evidence of said consensus to back it up is witless. In fact, it is, in my not-so-very-humble opinion, prima facie evidence of bad faith — of intent to pollute the dialog with false data.
Not only do all scientists not agree on the necessary points of CAGW (that it be Catastrophic, Anthropogenic, Global, and Warming — none of which have been demonstrated), but there is some evidence that a majority of relevant scientists — meteorologists, astrophysicists, und so weiter — DISagree on the subject with the so-called consensus position.
For my part, I would argue that the very term consensus is a term of art of the extremist, radical, revolutionary left, and anyone using it in an attempt to persuade should be automatically viewed with skepticism, if not dismissed thereby out of hand.