[mustacheemperor]

Only through people's incorrect interpretation of reality.

>nutrition science is hardly 'solved' and you'd be hard pressed to find a researcher in the field suggest otherwise.

You'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist not in agreement with the consensus on climate change, at least one that isn't already promoting book deals on Fox.

[hueving]

>You'd be hard pressed to find a climate scientist not in agreement with the consensus on climate change

You'd also be hard pressed to find a numerologist not in agreement with the consensus that numerology is effective.

Argument from authority isn't appropriate in this forum.

[mkautzm]

k.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[WillPostForFood]

yup, the science is "agreed on." Disagree and lose your job/funding. That's how to build climate consensus.

[mkautzm]

That's not at all true, and that level of ignorance is actually quite dangerous.

Scientists in no field are punished for disagreement. Even in really fringe science, disagreement is not only well-funded, but encouraged. A great example is String Theory: It has a lot of supporters and a lot of people saying it's untestable bunk, but research for both sides continues.. Consensuses happen when there is sufficient data to collapse to a consensus, not because 'funding'. Disagreements are extremely common in research and suggesting that the overwhelming consensus on the state of climate change is somehow a conspiracy or due to research pressures (that don't seem to exist anywhere else...) is complete garbage.

[tertius]

Are your a scientist? You seem very naive about the scientific world.

If you haven't experienced the cut throat nature of science or the immensely aggressive politics you may need to reassess your rose colored view.

The mantra, is your haven't heard it, is publish or perish.

Disagreement is well funded? What are your talking about? Good data is well funded. Doesn't matter how much you disagree, if the data is missing or bad you get no money.

[WillPostForFood]

I wish science was as functional as you imagine.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/sep/21/society.politics

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13098773

[wyager]

Nope, that's not how it works. Do you work in the science community? Many fields of science and engineering are gradually being eaten by politics. Going against progressive politics is dangerous for the career of any academic scientist in the US. This isn't a huge issue (yet) for math or hard physics. It's hard to politicize those fields (not for lack of trying; I could go on a very long rant about how non-scientists are trying to make scientific fields conform to their political expectations), but for other fields like environmental science (which, by the way, is only weakly scientific in the sense that it does not follow good practices for having high predictive power, so it's relatively easy to manipulate) political concerns are very powerful.

This is a bit rambly, but the gist of it is that it's naive to pretend that many nominally scientific fields are actually entirely objective and free from politics.

[baddox]

String theory doesn't, as far as I know, have significant government policy implications, so I wouldn't expect heterodoxy to be stigmatized as much as in climate science.