Cerran

You get a consensus because of the evidence, But what matters is the evidence, not who is supporting it. To tout a consensus instead of the actual physical evidence is something politicians do, not scientists.

Likely because like most "superior" designs, when you get down to the brass tacks there is some catch. The Otto cycle for SI engines is one of the more efficient designs out there and is proven technology. For a design to be superior it has to be as powerful, as efficient and at the very least cost the same or less. My guess without knowing which designs you are comparing is that they didn't meet these criteria. You also much realize such a design must also scale down well, provide good torque and have good brake specific fuel consumption.

Except that this isn't the case The are lots of peer review papers that don't support the idea that AGW is real. The term denier is also loaded and incorrect. People who dispute AGW based on the evidence would be known as skeptics. Science does not operate on consensus, it operates on observations of physical evidence. (Unless you a Popperist, and that brings up other problems) To belittle AGW skeptics certainly provides a purpose, the same purpose the church served in telling people the Sun was the center of the universe. The evidence is what it is, nothing more and nothing less.

The graph is also a variant of the Mann "Hockey Stick" graph which has been discredited. Here are those papers that show that the graph is based on flimsy methodology: Von Storch, Science, 2004 McIntyre & McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters, 2005 Mangini et al, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 2005. Plus there are two other reports that vastly condemn the graph, commonly known as the “North” report, and the Wegman report. The first was done by an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, the second was done by a panel of statisticians and others for a Congressional committee.