Peer review and such is more of a quick sanity check than anything else--in principle it's about verifying soundness, in practice it's more a quick and dirty fi

Peer review and such is more of a quick sanity check than anything else--in principle it's about verifying soundness, in practice it's more a quick and dirty filter to remove absolute rubbish. It'd be nice if things were more rigorous, but there are systematic limitations--e.g., triple checking someone else's work and not finding any problems does not advance one's scientific career. It tends to work out well enough most of the time, though. In any field there are usually different factions of experts and you should consider all positions. If all experts agree (!) then assuming that position is probably not going to materially affect you even if they are not exactly on the right path. Really? I can't actually think of any scientific fields with significant factional divides. Disagreements over trivia, perhaps (such as quantum mechanical interpretations), but nothing major. Disputes over major issues in science tend to be worked out pretty quickly, rarely persisting as stable factions. And yes, on the current topic, experts in climatology do pretty consistently agree on the science (proposed political "solutions" are another matter entirely...). What did you have in mind? Factional wars may crop up around the fringes in fields that are only partially scientific, but it's typically parts of the field that are especially difficult to study scientifically that the factions split over. Often it takes outsiders to shake up a field. Often? Really? Do you have any examples? The only significant shakeups in science that I can think of were started by people trained and acknowledged in the field (though typically young, obscure researchers, not famous and influential scientists). Personally I'm with "House", assume everyone is lying (or at least wrong) and you're usually right. In matters of science, everyone is wrong, but some are less wrong than others.