As for Musser, he thinks the term "scientific consensus" is counterproductive in the climate debate. While a valid claim, (i.e., there really is a consensus), Musser argues that it means something different to scientists than it expresses to the public, and that trotting out the term too often rubs independent thinkers the wrong way, allows skeptics to claim they are being muzzled and makes the scientists invoking it come off as arrogant (even though they themselves see it as an expression of humility). He concludes:
Telling people that there is a consensus cannot substitute for explaining why there is a consensus. As much as climate scientists may be wearying of debate, they need to press onward and treat each question as though it was the first time they had ever heard it.