Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing....
This is an assumption
of those who believe in
the "objectivity" and unity of science. The history of science not only shows that some scientists beleive in objectivity and some don't but that science has never been unfied philosophically, theoretically or methodologically.
Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
This is a naive and uninformed view of science.
But the testing period must come to an end.
Only you if you ignore the principle of iteration.
So a consensus in science is different from a political one.
Science is always political.
"...scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009)
How could it be long-term? The measurements comprise an insufficient sample.
In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
This not only contradicts the Economist and Forbes articles, but it also shows how naive these ding-a-lings are about epistemology. I wonder how many of them are aware of the distinction between correlations and causes?
Oreskes and Peiser
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process.
Why do they need
to? And when they do, why would they rely on the corrupt peer-review process?