Global Climate Disruption.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So consensus makes the science right? DO you realise how laughable that statement is? Some of the best science we have seen is all about challenging the status quo. It does not make it right if the majority agrees, since plenty of things in the past have been overturned, It was once believed that stress and other things cause ulcers. It was one scientific fact that blacks were less evolved than whites. It was once scientific fact that the sun revolves around the earth.

Consensus is what we must base our decisions on. There will always be scientists that disagree with the most basic scientific premises. There are biologist who genuinely think and have "data" to support intelligent design instead of the theory of evolution. Are we to not trust the scientists that fight to keep evolution in and I.D. out of the classroom?

This is an example of people taking a premise of how science should operate and trying to use it in the context of how science should be applied through policy. No one wants to silence the climate doubters or stop them from bringing up evidence that suggests otherwise (cue Fragony bringing up ClimateGate again). But no one wants to have the lone outsiders dictate what should be done or even have ourselves stagnate and not make a decision because there will always be that 2% of PhD holders that will claim that the Flat Earth Society is correct after all.

Science is always open to different opinions, how we should tackle a problem that even climate deniers now recognize (the fact that the Earth is indeed heating up for some reason) must be based upon what the consensus of the scientific community is, otherwise the answer to any given problem is to do nothing until that magical 100% agreement is achieved (AKA never).