Science doesn’t allow for a “consensus.” It’s either true or it’s not. Whenever a consensus is involved, it’s a psychological operation.
Science doesn’t allow for a “consensus.” It’s either true or it’s not.
I call it junk science. Fake
"Consensus" in 1633 was the Pope making Galileo kneel as he was found “vehemently suspected of heresy.” He was then forced to “abandon completely the false opinion” of Copernicanism.
Climate Cultists are in the role of the Pope 390 years later.
As well as a pretext for censorship. They didn't call it 'consensus' when archaeology began squealing like a stuck pig when someone had a different opinion or new evidence was unearthed; we collectively ignored all the warning signs.
It took government involvement to return to medieval times, acting like the Church and treating detractors - e.g., flat Earth - like heretics.
Now they wield it like a weapon. 'Climate change deniers', 'anti-vaxxers'...now 'maga republicans' & 'extremists' just for harboring a different political viewpoint...
...i.e., Conservatism.
I'm done playing. They need to feel real pain.
The core, the very essence of the scientific method is QUESTIONING!!!
A scientist is always looking for a way to challenge every assertion, and expects always to be challenged by others interested in seeking the TRUTH. Questioning, challenging, and second-guessing do not impede Science, they ARE Science. And anyone who resists that questioning is no Scientist, but a fool.