Dersu Uzala wrote:
and I know that in the
scientific world, accolades go the scientist that over-turns the
accepted
paradigm.

Jut where have you heard that?
From the time of Galileo to the present I think you have
proven wrong in that many time over.
...lew... cross posting deleted

The disconnect is timeframe. Accolades for "wrong-thinkers"
who turn out to be right are posthumous.

Peer review is a good system for weeding out irresponsible and
deliberately deceptive research, but it is as prone to imperfection
and error as government elected by a majority because peers (and
voters) often have self-interest agendae.

There are few institutions more political and bureaucratic than
universities and academia.

That may indeed be true, but it doesn't stop academia from coming to
accepted standards and a consensus on most issues. Whether it's string
theory, relativity, quantum physics, or anything else the scientific
community does things a certain way and eventually, when it gets enough
facts, it concludes what the established science is on a subject. What is
being asserted is that this scientific consensus does now exist regarding
global warming. Of course, there will be some who dispute what the majority
has decided, but just because a few voices dissent that doesn't change what
the majority in a field have concluded. We're at that point about global
warming. The accepted science as of today is that man is causing the planet
to warm unnaturally fast. Anyone that wants can take the opposite view but
you have to understand that just like nicotine and tobacco there is a side
in this that is trying to muddy the water because they have a vested
interest in there not being man made global warming. When you take them out
of the discussion what's left is a scientific view that is accepted as fact
by most every credible scientist. And you have a small group of scientists
who don't agree with the majority. In a group of scientists it is not often
that the small group having the minority opinion is proven right. Sometimes,
but not often. In this case with all the evidence available the odds of the
majority being completely wrong is pretty damn slim.

Hawke