This argument of scientific consensus is what is bollocks. If there aren’t controversies among the majority of climate scientists I think this is a worrisome si

This argument of scientific consensus is what is bollocks. If there aren’t controversies among the majority of climate scientists I think this is a worrisome sign of science stuck on a loop. Scientific inquiry and disagreements are part of the scientific process which should be expected - seeing the difficulty of grasping most topics of that scale. To me it speaks more of who and what research is funded and a distorted way of doing science. That said, we’re mostly dealing with models here. I can expect this community to love graphs and models, but also to know how unstable and unreliable they can be. In other words, they often fail to communicate (with) reality. In the climate change field, we can see that by the consistent failure to predict the climate future such as rising of the oceans and other extreme heat predictions going back the 80s or 90s. There is a lot of money to be made with this perspective (heard the saying- what hurt can it be to pollute less?). Taxes and more taxes and government partnering with private players to offer solutions to this potentially fabricated problem (even if only by promoting models that agree with the story). And that is just one of the benefits that can be gained from this narrative. Power grabs and regulation is also of interest here, in my view. Then, to defend these interests, you repress and silence scientists who disagree and accuse all opposition of conspiracy. Check who created this term, by the way. Was it a private, independent smart individual or the government?