- "There is no consensus in the scientific community about AGW"
An example can be found here in a discussion of the Oreskes Science editorial:
"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.
"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.
- "Scientists are afraid to disagree with the apparent AGW consensus"
This argument can be found in this recent WSJ oped by Dick Lindzen:
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear.
Of course, perhaps they're both wrong. Maybe there's no debate because the science solidly supports the conclusion that humans are the primary driver of today's warming ... of course Peiser and Lindzen don't mention that possibility. Draw your own conclusions.