To return to the topic of this thread—Science is not about coming to a consensus as the Global Warming or Climate Change charlatans contend.
99.999999% of all scientists in the world could agree with some particular theory or hypothesis, and all evidence could point to it being a LAW of science. . . but if one fact arose that falsified all of that, then that theory, hypothesis, and even a LAW must be thrown out and a new theory, hypothesis, and even a law that encompasses that new fact must be found the includes the new observed fact. One does not sweep the inconvenient fact under the carpet so one can continue believing in the now proved wrong, older orthodoxy. . . but that is what modern science has become in many fields.
Climate Change is just one, the tip, of the no longer "disciplines" in the iceberg of politicized science. From Climate Change "science" to Cosmology to Archaeology to Astronomy to Egyptology to Paleontology, politicized "science" has been rearing its ugly head as orthodoxy has quashed any new idea that challenges the old way of thinking. . . ideas that would challenge the old guard and require text books to be rewritten.
A lot of this has been paralleling the growth of government funding of science. Government funding is the ultimate orthodox support mechanism. The committees that choose who get funding are staffed by people who are hidebound and tied to the orthodoxy by chains and hawsers covered in mold. They are the last people to take any chances on anything that would challenge the well established thinking. Those who might upset the status quo are unlikely to get funded for research.
Publication and peer-review of articles that challenge orthodox views is also extremely difficult when challenging consensus science when consensus "scientists do the peer-review based on the fact it challenges the consensus, not on the merits of the evidence or actual logic or scientific work presented in the article. It is especially difficult when "scientific" or "professional" journals refuse to even accept papers that do not comport to currently accepted orthodoxy in the opinion of the editors so they never get submitted for peer-review, thus being relegated to obscure less prestigious, non-peer-reviewed journals, if published at all.
Closed minds, orthodox science that becomes indistinguishable from religious dogma, all result in destroying the actual practice of true science.
later