What have we been told about a meaningful consensus?
Please read this if you believe that consensus science is acceptable.
Please read this if you believe that the “science is settled”.
An extract from the original source:
“Meteorology-climatology is playing a decisive role this political action. The – alleged – CO2 consensus here is serving as a lever within the group that consists of known colleagues who deal with climate, but also consists of a large number of climate bureaucrats coming from every imaginable social field. Together both groups consensually have introduced a binding dogma into this science (which is something that is totally alien to the notion of science).

This is not the first time such a thing has happened in the history of science. Here although this dogma came about through democratic paths (through consensus vote?), in the end it is almost dictatorial. Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished? In climatology the doubt is about datasets or results taken over from hardly verifiable model simulations from other parties. Until recently this kind of science was considered conquered – thanks to our much celebrated liberty/democratic foundation! “