The June 5 "Hysteria over Paris pullout" by Cal Thomas regarding "scientific consensus" stated: "..that climate scientists who disagree on that consensus have been largely shut out of the debate. Their papers and ideas are blocked from mainstream scientific journals and, thus, are not subject to peer review." He goes on to show that "scientific consensus" has at times turned out wrong.
One of the publications I subscribe to is the prestigious "Science" magazine published weekly by the American Association for Advancement of Science. A lot of smart people publish their works it.
However, when you go to the third page you will see a list of people, starting with the editor in chief, of over 100 people and their job titles. Next to that, there is a list of about 200 people on the board of reviewing editors.
At the bottom, in very small light gray print, it says: "Science serves as a forum for discussion of important issues related to the advancement of science by publishing material on which a consensus has been reached as well as including the presentation of minority conflicting points of view."
The biggest thing in science today is genome biology. The rate of technical advancements is just mind-boggling. You would think with all that evidence resulting from trying to figure out how such a truly massive array of molecular machinery even works would be a no-brainer supporting intelligent design
Yet where are the "minority conflicting points of view" on intelligent design? I've not seen them.
The magazine seems hell-bent on pushing macro-evolution in almost every issue, no matter how stupid it looks.
The same can be said for young age versus old age of the Earth. There is actually more evidence for a young Earth than for an Earth billions of years old, yet that evidence is never presented.
The education establishment today is supposedly teaching kids about critical thinking. And they probably do; just as long as they don't start thinking outside the confines of the politically correct science box.