Pointless Climate Change Arguments, page-5

Okay, so you see science as a political construct, rather than something substantiated by empirical testing. But that's a redefinition of the meaning of science, not some new way of proving something in the previously accepted definition of the scientific method, which was the basis of my questions above.

Back in Galileo's time the church represented the scientific establishment, and pretty much 100% of them believed the earth was flat. Didn't make it right. There are plenty of other cases where so-called accepted science has been overturned. Like that cholera was transmitted in the miasma, or that light travelled in the ether.

I think this discussion started with your comment on an article about Peter Ridd, who has been cancelled out of academia, and not able to publish because he disagreed with the consensus view on the Great Barrier Reef. So, if dissenting voices are cancelled or don't get past peer review, then the 99.9% claim is manufactured. Other scientists who see this and want to keep their career learn to just keep quiet about it.