« on: 04/10/2013 15:32:45 »
I do not disagree that consensus is not science in a traditional sense, but given the complexity of our understanding, science in that sense is a holy grail like goal. For example is the development of new pharmaceuticals a one man "bench lead" exercise or an iterative work of many "scientists"?Quotethe majority of scientists although by no means all working in the field of climate science kind of agree - leading to the unequivocal conclusions in the recent IPCC report
Science is about facts, not consensus. The overwhelming consensus was in favour of a geocentric universe, a flat earth, four elements, indivisible atoms, phlogiston, aether, and the impossibility of manned flight (let alone lunar exploration). As for "what can be done about it?" the consensus in 1955 was that the UK would need "about five computers" to solve all the government's problems.
Credible science will eventually kill AGW, not the other way around.
A few months ago a Canadian group announced the growth of some plants that had been buried under a glacier for 500 years. The scientifically interesting point is not that the glacier is now retreating, but that it was a lot warmer 500 years ago (i.e. well within recorded history) when the CO2 level was presumably a lot less, in order for the plants to be there at all. That's science.
"Traditional" science has also been proven wrong on a number of occasions - as an aposite example - reconstruction of fossil skeletons have on more than one occasion be shown to be incorrect, but science picked itself up and changed its view of that particualr creature...