>>60486059>>does that mean we can ignore the scientific consensus whenever we don't like it?
Yes. There is no such thing as "scientific consensus." Consensus is irrelevant to science.
In case you weren't in science class the day they taught the scientific method:
Observation > Hypothesis > Test Hypothesis > Rinse & Repeat > General Theory
If you have a theory that reliably predicts observable phenomenon in the world then there's no need to talk about a consensus. If someone doubts your theory tell them to perform the fucking experiment. It would be stupid to talk about a "consensus" for E=mc^2.
If people are talking about a "scientific consensus" then they are trying to prop up a theory they like which has not yet proven itself. Or worse, one that is actually falsified. And that's not science. It's politics.