While TimG's point of 'group think' being a problem isn't the primary issue facing us, with Climate Change, I don't think he's off the mark in describing it as a 'general' problem with organizations. Of course, Waldo will pillory me because I agree with some minor premise and therefore 'enable' TimG's argument (I don't) I find it interesting that sometimes Climate Change is given too much leeway.
The issue I am arguing here is a pedantic one about properly understanding what science can do and not do and where biases of researchers can affect results and where they don't matter. I also feel that by denying the inherent limitations of the science they conduct, climate scientists only undermine their own credibility and exacerbate the politically polarized environment when they should be using science to bridge the divide.
In any case, the issue is irrelevant to the question of what to do since I agree that we know enough to justify some policy response to increasing CO2 emissions. I obviously have my own opinions on what policy response is appropriate but those opinions are not going change if I was suddenly convinced that everything the "consensus" said was the absolute truth because the appropriate policy response is a question of economics (what can we afford?), technology (what can we do given what we can afford?) and values (what priorities do we have?).