No, people like me claim that scientific consensus is often driven by factors outside of science.

In fact, I keep an open mind about the whole subject.

You might want to look that up.

Aside from the debate of whether climate change is real or not, what puzzles me about this topic is how he hell a couple of dozen teenagers can afford the legal fees to sue the government, on what has been stated to be an ongoing battle covering the subject over several different charges........

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

And funding.

There is nothing rigid about science - your failure to grasp this being a common theme in this thread. Scientists put forth a "theory" and then it gets peer reviewed - a process in which any and all competing scientists get to kick the crap out of it and see if it holds up. If it does, then it becomes the scientific consensus as and until further research (e.g. from technological advances) debunks some or all of it. In such cases, the process starts all over again and we have a new consensus or we don't, depending on how the peer review goes.

There is nothing rigid about this process at all.

And since when has ignoring the consensus findings of 97% of the scientific community been the smart play?

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

My failure to grasp?

Ha ha, you are funny.

I know how science works bud.

If you want funding, you don't buck the trend and when theories are peer reviewed, it is by other scientists who need funding.
The world is warming and some of that might be caused by man but please don't tell me it's a certainty because 90% of scientists say so. If science was always right then we would still believe the Earth was flat. Now I know that the scientific process has moved on since those days but how many theories accepted by the majority have turned out to be partly or entirely bulls***?

[Link]

You are clueless. Scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth but could never quite prove it. Then Copernicus offered a theory that it was the other way around, because science isn't rigid, and others tested and ultimately concurred with his findings. [Link]

If things were as you say, scientists would still be trying to prove that that sun was our bitch because society and the all-powerful church of the time was vested in this being so.

Scientists don't make money re-proving someone else's science. They make money when they break new ground. The link you provided shows this to be the case.

Edited by Ray in Houston (04 Jan 2018 4.24pm)

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.