>>>>>"Science" is never about consensus.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Correction, it is and has always been about it.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>Ancient consensus by science was the earth was the center of the heavenly   
   >>>>bodies.  Observation and common sense was the basis for the consensus.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>As people came  to observe flukes in the observation of the orbit of the   
   >>>>planets; this conclusion came under increasing doubt.   Complex explanitory   
   >>>>models to account for the flukes arose.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>A new view that the sun was orbitedd by the planets solved the flukes of   
   >>>>the observvations and did so in a more straight forward less complex   
   >>>>manner.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>A new sun centric consensus arose in support of that view and is now the   
   >>>>standard explanitory model.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>That is how science proceeds.  A consensus model persists until new info   
   >>>>and/or a model with greater explanitory ppower comes along.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>So it is with the consensus on human related climate change.   
   >>>   
   >>>The consus comes last. It follows along behind the 'better answer'   
   >>>whenever that is found.   
   >>   
   >>Yes, that is what I said.   
   >   
   >What I am saying is that ""Science" is never about consensus.".   
   >Concensus is what gets demolished.   
      
   And a new one emerges,ie. earth to sun centric model.   
      
   'The Kuhn Cycle - Thomas Kuhn's Brilliant Model of How Scientific Fields   
   Progress'   
      
   http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/KuhnCycle.htm   
      
      
   The little book that started it all is a good read, anyone with an interest   
   in the history and philosophy of science should read it:   
      
   'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.'   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)