Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. That's because you usu

Within most science research groups there will be an expectation that you will be following the "consensus" model, whatever that may be. That's because you usually believe it when you sign up. That's within a lab, not a field. You don't go play guitar for a group whose music you can't stand. Anthropogenic climate change is the mantra for climate research, so you had better follow party line or you don't get funded. This is where you either need to show some evidence or I'm not going to believe you. Outsiders say this, but the truth is usually just the opposite: If you have some results that are counter-establishment, the funding flood comes. Fifth force, earth angular momentum-coupling, cold fusion.... It's harder to get that evidence because, duh, if it were easy then that would be the norm- the standard belief of the field. This is the popular misconception that people have outside of research. It's one of those urban legends: sounds plausible, and somebody knows a guy, aligns with my belief system, therefore must be true. But the fact is, when something outside of accepted beliefs seems to have strong evidence, there is a lot of excitement in the field and people all talk about it and rush to be a part of it. Heady days! In fact, many believe that certain things exist and spend their days, months and years trying to find those things. I agree. As James Randi said, "Scientists, like everybody else, tend to find what they are looking for." It does take a while to break out of old theoretical frameworks. Look at the hoops that astrophysics is jumping through to explain their observations that are based on the idea that physical constants are truly constants as well as certain conservation laws. They are inventing all kinds of exotic, not-quite-self-consistent schemas for explaining their observations. But that's very different from the assertion that "if you don't buy into it you can't get funded." It is true that you'll have to have your ducks in a row (stars aligned? heh) to get that funding, but if you had a way to explain all of this shit in a simple, self-consistent way then you would be fine. But you wouldn't have to fight a bunch of politically-driven opinion-makers on that front because they don't GAF. With climate change you have to do exactly that- some politicians have forbidden even its discussion.