It means that a scientific community is in general agreement through thorough peer review and statistically significant evidence, at a given moment.
Peer review these days can be a bad thing. Scientists get their money usually from grants and governments. This is also why we see less and less publication about FAILURES in science even though those failures contain very important information to science as well.
Peer review is meaningless if you are pulling from peers all caught up in this system. It should be OPEN and testing/experiment methodology, data, and how the data was collected all available for ANYONE to attempt if they have the means.
There are some things that require massive equipment so likely only will occur with the aid of a lab. Thus, the people that could review such a thing would be small in number.
Peer review these days is fraught with a lot of conflict of interest.
I do not believe consensus has any value. It can either be proven, or disproven. If the data is present and someone challenges it then meet the challenges with science. Any challenges should also be presented with science.
Consensus corrupts the concepts of science and it in fact IS NOT part of the scientific method.
Again, you are confusing two different things. Bad science is bad science. It's not a problem with the scientific method. Indeed, scientific consensus is useful for weeding out the political bias etc. you allude to.
You could possibly claim that one nation's science funding is fraught with conflict of interest, but when you put together thousands of scientists in a field, coming from entirely different walks of lives and philosophies, in over 200 countries, it becomes painfully obvious by studying the data where there is a bias and where there is not. If, however, you think the entire world is participating in a global conspiracy, let's leave it at that.
I do have a question for you? Can you get at the actual data, the methodology for the data collection, and the experiments and testing to validate it?
I ask because I know many scientific studies require you join a rather expensive paywall to get to such information. In fact that has been a concern for a number of people since before Climate Change was an issue.
As I understand it a lot of this material is behind a paywall regardless of the nation you live in.
Likewise, as far as conspiracy. Let's say it IS happening. Carbon Taxes? Give me a break. That is a joke, not a solution.
For the record I've been anti-pollution (all kinds, not just carbon) since long before global warming and then climate change were an issue. So I am all for dealing with pollution wherever we may find it.
Yet it should be real solutions, not obvious political ones that don't really do anything but play kick the can.
It seems clear to me that you haven't actually bothered researching and have a completely warped belief of how modern science works. I don't blame you, it's likely shaped by regressive media and cultural forces. This whole thing about the elite controlling scientists is complete paranoia conspiracy and demonstrably false. Sure, there are some patches here or there fraught with bias, but once again, that's why scientific consensus is important - to get at the heart of the evidence, weed out the biases individual scientists may hold.
Please do some research, you'll be pleasantly surprised. I'll leave it at that, all the best :) Good discussion.
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.
He is absolutely accurate in his statements, and in fact there have been a lot of people within academia raising alarm bells about these issues for some time, but you know better don't you? You are the one who hasn't done your proper research. "Demonstrably false", what a joke.
Also I never said there was a problem with the scientific method. I said consensus is not part of the scientific method.