"Science" by consensus, or vote, is not real science.
The UN's IPCC has the goal of proving humans are destroying their planet, so the UN can justify stepping in as a 'world environment government' to stop that.
The IPCC starts with a conclusion, and then seeks only the data that may justify that conclusion.
The IPCC also requires consensus science:
"PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
"
10. "In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavours to reach consensus."
Once they reach a consensus, they claim it is a consensus of "climate scientists" -- anyone who disagrees is 'obviously not a climate scientist'.
There's a strong bias against anyone who does not believe Carbon Dioxide is the climate controller … in spite of 4.5 billion years of geologic evidence that higher levels of CO2 than today had no relationship with temperature.
Suppression of alternate views is accomplished through ridicule, character attacks, denial of funding, denial of access to computer models, hiding raw data, and rejection of papers by mainstream publications.
Is this a climate change conspiracy?
No, it's a climate change religion.
Governments only hire "religious" scientists who believe in a coming climate catastrophe.
The scientists are hired to predict a coming catastrophe … and they would lose their jobs if they announced the current climate was great, and getting better (which is true.).
It's not a conspiracy to do whatever it takes to keep your job and support your family.
Central governments want more power (socialism), and the easiest way to get more power is to come up with a reason the fewest people would disagree with: "To save the Earth".
Some "scientists" enjoy playing computer games inside air-conditioned offices for a very good living.
They get media attention when they present a scary climate predictions, and kudos when they tell everyone they are working "to save the planet".
Politicians often say "the science is settled", which is an extremely anti-science thought.
Then they contradict themselves by not firing all climate modelers on government payrolls -- what work could climate modelers possibly do if "the science is settled"?
Measurements are presented with poorly done, or no, reasonable estimates of error and uncertainty.
No physical error analysis.
Statistical estimates of precision may be provided, but they are worthless for an estimate of the physical reliability of the work.
If you don't know error limits, you really don't know anything!
“In response to a request for supporting data, Philip Jones, a prominent researcher (University of East Anglia) said: ‘We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?’”
– Quote from the testimony of Stephen McIntyre before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 2006).
Scary climate predictions get attention and funding, but "doomsday" is always far enough in the future to avoid personal accountability when the predictions fail … and they have been failing miserably for 40 years so far.
A successful career for most climate "scientists" simply requires telling the government that hires them that they see a coming climate change catastrophe.
They have been "seeing" a coming catastrophe for 40 years so far.
Being right doesn't matter.
Economists and Wall Street analysts are familiar with the modeling techniques used in climate "science".
Modeling the S&P 500 is very much like modeling the climate.
Multi-variable linear regression modeling techniques.
But climate modelers are trying to model something much more complex than the S&P 500, with the causes of climate change still not understood.
The IPCC claims 95% certainty, but that's a number they pull out of a hat.
Global warming projections from 20 year ago now exceed reality by over two standard deviations, which in plain English means the projections were worthless.
Engineers try to do their work so they could later prove they were not negligent in court, if the part or product they designed failed and injured a customer.
Real science requires constant disbelief and skepticism about data accuracy and conclusions.
But climate "science" is mainly data free -- computer game projections of the future climate are treated as "data".
Real science is not about consensus or computer games.
Most scientific advances come from a lone scientist, or a small team, challenging an existing consensus.
A consensus usually rejects any new theory, and the scientist who presents it … often for a long time.
But they gradually realize they will make no further contribution in their field, unless they accept the new theory, and build on it.
At that point, formerly stubborn scientists of the old consensus will begin claiming they knew it all along -- as if they were all working on papers about the new theory when someone else published first!
When anyone claims "the science is settled", you’ve got politics, not real science.