Are you aware that a lot of peer reviewed journals have recently been analyzed and found to have published a lot of false and unproven things? Sure there are good things. Yet there is also an increasing problem with false information is not readily available, only positive results, when the negative results are important information as well. You also did not answer about the paywall for many of the scientific studies.
Instead you decided to kind of shift things. Use your own appeal to authority and point out what you see as my flaws. Like you said I don't blame you as most (even me) use such tactics due to a completely "Warped belief" and failure to remember to use critical thinking.
You also make assumptions. I've actually done the research. My conclusions being different from yours does not indicate I have not. Focusing on that turns it more into an ad hominem.
My conclusions differ from yours. You see I also make observations, ask questions, form hypothesis, and attempt to put them to the test.
Someone asking me a question does not typically result in me focusing on their ignorance rather than answering.
This is a false dichotomy really. It's not either believing in a proper peer-reviewed scientific consensus, or a conspiracy theory.
Scientific claims are usually cross-examined by other scientists, however political interests play a huge role when it comes to the aftermath.
The science part ends with the verification of an experiment. The applications or the steps to confront an issue is an entirely different subject.
The problem is, unfortunately, that many bright scientists have no clue about politics and global dynamics. Take for example Einstein and Feynman, who contributed in creating the atomic bomb. Would they still do it had they been more informed about who this served mostly and who would pay in the end?
Stating that there are political agendas that serve interests is not a conspiracy theory. People in power usually take whatever is available to them and use it to make the most of it. This does not make it a lie, but it does make it partially insincere. These interests are often conflicted with other powerful people or companies, and this is what creates politics.
I therefore agree with dwinblood that if something is presented as a choice of either black or white, there is something wrong with it. Subjects like climate change are so much more complicated than that. There can be partial causes, there can be unknown causes, there can be good solutions that cause worse problems, etc. All factors have to be taken into account and it's just too chaotic to be team 1: the good guys vs team 2: the bad guys. That only happens in politics, and football.
It is also true that peer-review today is very problematic. Several scientists create support circles with other colleagues and they support each other regardless of content quality, knowing this support will come back to them. It's like having a voting circle here on steemit. And since people today rely so heavily on academia, and the only way to make a name among all these other fellow scientists is publish, publish, and publish, to get a grant and publish more, the is a new trend that has been established: publish positive results only, ignore any failure. It is true that studies that ended without the expected outcome are not published at all, although these are as equally useful proving that something doesn't work. It is also true that the continuous publications lower quality, in the sense that a research that could have taken 10 years to fully complete will be compartmentalized and presented in 2 year-periods, for example, perhaps presenting false conclusions on the way.
So I take it that "consensus" refers to the stance towards handling a result following a research, not the experimental method itself. Great article by the way!
Good reply. Hopefully the people that really need to see your reply will.