Where we really are, as far as facts, is that the Earth is most likely warming, mankind is more likely than not contributing to that/causing it, and none of the international proposals to help the climate would do anything to fix that problem (most would in fact make it worse).
That's a compilation of a number of points that have been previously discussed, including specifically problems with the instrumental record, problems with modeled projections, inability to run experiments on a climate, and frankly, the idea that a "consensus" has real meaning (4 out of 5 dentists recommend Crest after all - does that mean that they had the clinical expertise to evaluate whether Crest was objectively better? Is expertise in being a dentist really the same as expertise in evaluating tooth paste? Every list of the "climate consensus" includes a lot of people who have no direct expertise on global climate change).
On this last point, I note that we increasingly take "lists" or "groups" at face value uncritically in debate (as another, admittedly less popular example, we frequently hear about Trump's "documented lies" when a bunch of the "documented lies" are nothing more than differences of opinion). If your argument really is that you don't know anything but you believe other smart people who told you the answer, why exactly are you "debating" an issue in the first place?
Your position does put you firmly in the "believer" column, although I do question the depth of your belief. (If I were stuck on a ship that I thought was most likely sinking because of what we were doing, but no one had a good plan on how to stop it, I think I would spend much less energy on defending those who thought the ship wasn't really sinking and far more energy on trying to find a way to keep the freaking thing afloat.
)
However, I would like to discuss the value of "consensus." You are correct that a consensus does not prove a scientific idea, and that many lists of "climate consensus" include people who are not experts in the field. But I think you are dismissing the value of such consensuses.
For one thing, while there are lists of consensuses that include many people with no direct expertise on the subject, I don't know of any list limited to those with expertise that is not also a consensus. There is a consensus among scientists in general; among climatologists in general; and among climatologists who study and model the climate and the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, AFAIK. While such lists can give an incorrect impression about what is generally agreed about in a field, I don't think it is the case with climate change.
I would very much like to see the lists that do
not have a general consensus on AGW. I think it would be quite instructive to see who were on those lists, what groups they represent, and how the members of the list were chosen.
The other thing is about proof in science. Unlike mathematics, you can never really "prove" a scientific theory. There is always the possibility of it being changed or disproven by new facts.
What you can state is that the overwhelming weight of the evidence shows that the theory is sound. This includes measurements, models, predictions and consensus.
Consensus is part of the evidence because those who know the most about a subject are much better at being "right" about it than the layman. Just like professional car mechanics are more likely to know how to fix your car than the guy off the street, or professional oncologists are more likely to know how to treat your cancer. Because they are familiar with the subject and its details; they have questioned and reviewed the evidence in the subject; they have tested the information, looking for flaws; they have made practical predictions and seen how they turned out; and they have searched for answers when the predictions did not turn out correctly and try to correct their models and knowledge. IOW, they have done everything you expect the skeptics to have done, but on a professional level, where their reputations and livelihood are at stake.
Does this mean they are correct all the time? Of course not. But neither are the skeptics. And between the two, I think you'll find the experts are correct far more often than the skeptics.
Which means that the consensus of experts should be given significant weight when deciding whether a hypothesis is likely to be true or not. It is not just an "argument from authority." It is another piece of evidence to be considered along with the basic known science (increase in greenhouse gases should increase trapped heat), what is observed (temperatures are increasing at rate unprecedented in the last few hundred thousand years, along with the other evidence and the observed increased in human-generated CO2 in the atmosphere), and the hypotheses (various models of climate that all indicate that CO2 is responsible). Everything combined makes AGW as certain as just about anything else we currently "know" about the universe. The only real questions are the details--how fast is the climate changing, what are the effects of this change, and is there a "tipping point" when the whole chaotic system may change to a new state.
It's not just an argument from authority. When almost everyone who should know believes something is true, it means you should carefully check what makes you believe otherwise. Because the best bet is that you are the one who is wrong.
