As for your crap about climate change being based on consensus, not empirical evidence, you are again, flat out wrong. The basis of climate change IS evidence, not consensus. Consensus studies have been done by non-climatologists for the sole reason that climate change deniers have created an "atmosphere" of doubt and misinformation surrounding the science of climate change, to the point where they have manufactured a scientific "debate" to mislead the public as to the actual scientific evidence for human impacts on climate.
The consensus studies that have been done, yes the ones such as Cooks 97% consensus, were done mostly by not sending scientists a questionnaire, or getting them to sign some bullshit petition (see Oregon petition) but instead reviewed samples of the scientific literature in the field of climate science, and looked for papers that made a statement about the human role in climate change. The results were that of papers that made a statement about human role in climate change, 97% of those papers supported the evidence that humans have been driving the current trends. Again, all this shows is that there is agreement within the field of climate science, and such a "debate" doesn't really exist at all among the actual researchers, however that's not to say that everyone in climate science has the same opinions about everything related to climate change, but the vast majority of them do not deny the scientific evidence that has been presented over the past few decades about the role of human activity in driving the current trend.
Go ahead, actually bother to read the consensus study itself and gain a better understanding of it. This isn't the only one too, there are several more you can look up / read such as Powell, 2013, Verheggen et al, 2014, Oreskes, 2004, etc. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Then read the follow up paper from last year:http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002