[Chaguito]

Answer: Never

The frustrating part of being a real scientist is that no matter how well your experiments seem to support your hypothesis or theory, someone out in the audience is already pushing experiments that will demonstrate its inadequacy. That’s real science.

[Doogle]

...whenever they use the word consensus

[Arm_Bears]

Science is not consensus, and consensus is not science.

(Tortured musings of a conservative Ph.D.)

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam Me to Planet Gore !

[norwaypinesavage]

Good catch. This presents a very good set of objective arguments to deal with warming zealots.

[Joe 6-pack]

Looks like our other conversation gave birth to a thread of its own!

[allmendream]

While I am appalled at Nature circling the wagons and choosing the poorly defendable climate “science” hill to fight on, I do take comfort in the fact that these climate “scientists” knew that they had to “redefine the peer review process” in order for their “consensus” to survive.

Climate is, as the author suggests, not as applicable to the scientific method as many other things. For one thing it is impossible to do a controlled experiment (the bedrock of science), there being of course only ONE Earth.

[ForGod'sSake]

Have you been pinged to this one???

[Marine_Uncle]

Perhaps Al Bore should read this article. Nay. To much money already invested.

[FreeKeys]

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.” — Michael Crichton