If Al Gore is right, why does he need to cheat? He said there was a consensus within the scientific community on man-made global warming in 1992, and there wasn't. So now he says that this time there really is a consensus, but the difference this time is, oh wait, there is no difference - it's still a lie.
Good article by a guy who started out trying to prove that there was a consensus:
More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.So what does this false consensus do? It ends debate. Al's said it: the debate is over. He said that 15 years ago but it didn't take. Now he's saying it again and more people are buying it. But that doesn't make it true.
My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers, I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.