Science is about using scientific models to test theories, reproducing results, and forming consensus on theories. Consensus is defined by the majority of a group of people coming to similar conclusions. That's exactly how science works. A scientist prepares a theory, tests the theory, comes to a conclusion, and then publishes the result. Scientists the world over review the paper, many try to reproduce the results either using the same data set or by conducting their own studies to get a new empirical data set. Then if the majority of scientists come back and say they concur with the original study, then you have consensus on the theory.
For example, we know that there is a scientific consensus that high cholesterol is a serious risk factor for heart disease. If you don't believe that there is consensus on that, then go to any doctor and ask them if you are at risk of heart disease, because you have high cholesterol. They will invariably say yes. That's consensus, because the science is well known and sound and has been peer reviewed and reproduced time and again.
We also know that there is a consensus that CO2 is increasing, that man is the primary cause of it, and that CO2 increases are correlated to warming. The science is multi-disciplinary, has been reproduced, includes multiple data sets, has been peer reviewed, and consensus has been formed.
Anyone on these threads that says consensus plays no part in the science world simply doesn't know very much about science. However, having said all that, science is about probability, not certainty. So it is still possible that the scientific consensus is wrong on GW, despite all the work that supports their theories right now. |
