Funny how it gets 'splained over and over and over and over again to your warmer moonbats that "consensus" is politcal, and isn't anywhere to be found ind scientific method....Speaking of dumb fucks.
If it is NOT in the scientific method, please explain how what we think of as settled science gets settled.
No response to this yet. Let's see if we can tease out an answer. A scientist or researcher publishes a study whose results, they argue, supports a certain hypothesis. Other scientists and researchers read the study. Some try to repeat the research. Many simply examine the study to see if anything was overlooked or if mistakes were made. If the experimental results turn our to be repeatable and no one finds any fatal errors in the work, the theory comes to be accepted. As more and more time goes by and still no errors are found and/or other research supports the same conclusions, even more will come to accept the theory. Now, not everyone's judgement is equal in something like this. The opinion of a senior, theoretical physicist on a study on the stellar evolution of brown dwarf stars should be given considerably more weight than the opinion of your plumber, no matter how good he is at fixing your clogged toilet. So, when looking to see how well theories in the climate sciences are accepted, it is best to examine the opinions of active climate scientists.
Am I going too fast for you?
