Personally, my confidence about climate change is based largely around my confidence in the scientific consensus.
That's the problem. Science is supposed to work based on replication, not "consensus". The motto of the royal society loosely translated means "take no one's word for it". The fact that they're now using anti-epistomology to argue for their claims is a big argument against them.
(I'll charitably assume that by replication you mean something broader, e.g. scientific evidence -- you can't do replications sensu stricto in cosmology either.)
(I was about to type something very similar to what Ishaan said, but about birds being (descended from) dinosaurs instead of beta decay.)
The fact that they're now using anti-epistomology to argue for their claims is a big argument against them.
Can you quote or link to a few examples where you think climatologists use anti-epistomology to argue for their claims?
People want to tell everything instead of telling the best 15 words. They want to learn everything instead of the best 15 words. In this thread, instead post the best 15-words from a book you've read recently (or anything else). It has to stand on its own. It's not a summary, the whole value needs to be contained in those words.
I'll start in the comments below.
(Voted by the Schelling study group as the best exercise of the meeting.)