<story><title>Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the literature</title><url>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>j0ba</author><text>Consensus is the currency of politics, not science. Before Einstein there was &amp;gt; 99% consensus that Newtonian gravity was ultimate description of gravitational force.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>wolverine876</author><text>&amp;gt; Consensus is the currency of politics, not science.&lt;p&gt;What is that based on? Scientists use the concept, including in this scientific paper and many others.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Before Einstein there was &amp;gt; 99% consensus that Newtonian gravity was ultimate description of gravitational force.&lt;p&gt;Certainly not: They knew there was a lot unknown about gravity; they just didn&amp;#x27;t have the answers. And after Einstein, there was plenty scientists were aware was unknown, such as the mechanism for mass - the Higgs Boson wasn&amp;#x27;t discovered until 2012. There&amp;#x27;s a lot unknown now; no scientist will tell you that we have the ultimate description; for example, we can&amp;#x27;t reconcile gravity yet with other fundamental forces.&lt;p&gt;Newton&amp;#x27;s predictions are accurate to this day, except in the narrow circumstances described by Einstein.&lt;p&gt;And what does it have to do with climate change? If the predictions are as accurate as Newton, we aren&amp;#x27;t going to get much more certain information. What alternative theory is a better bet?</text></comment>
<story><title>Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the literature</title><url>https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>j0ba</author><text>Consensus is the currency of politics, not science. Before Einstein there was &amp;gt; 99% consensus that Newtonian gravity was ultimate description of gravitational force.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>godelski</author><text>Einstein writes hypothesis. Hypothesis gets submitted to peer review. Peer review passes and grows in acceptance. Peers challenge the idea and try to poke holes, better proving the hypothesis stands. Peers test implications of hypothesis. Eventually this becomes a theory and consensus is born. That&amp;#x27;s science working in action. Science depends on consensus. Consensus doesn&amp;#x27;t mean you&amp;#x27;re right, but it does mean that no one can find a serious flaw.</text></comment>