Modern scientific statements generally have dozens, even hundreds, of peer reviewed authors. For example, seldom is a scientific paper released from, say, the international CERN particle accelerator without citing hundreds of physicist-authors. Dissenting views are be cited, analyzed, and addressed in scientific papers; the reasons for discounting dissenting scientific views are plainly presented.
Similarly, the work of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contains the views of believers and skeptics. Thousands of views were considered and referenced. The scientific observations were that: a planet relatively high in C02 creates a warming climate. Humanity is pumping C02 into the atmosphere at historic rates. The planet is warming and sea levels are rising from melting glaciers. Humanity is destroying both oceanic and land vegetation, which normally captures C02 and frees oxygen for animals to breath.
The conclusion was that humanity is destroying the planets ability to balance atmospheric C02 and oxygen; concurrently through the burning of fossil fuels, we are adding C02 into the atmosphere at historic rates. The result is a detectable rise in both the planet’s temperature and sea levels.
In the political press, the views of dissenters are often reported with charts and analysis that and are stated without supporting scientific peer review – attempting to reduce scientific investigation into conclusions based on who shouts the loudest by blasting the political press with manufactured arguments.
In contrast, the Climate Change Panal’s observations were not a matter of a vote that led to the majority saying whatever they want. Neither were the observations those of a few tyrannical bullies. Simply stated, Dissenting views were cited, analyzed, peer reviewed, and found wanting.
The panel’s report on climate is not a political statement; it is a scientific one – even though its conclusion has social consequences. The planet is actively warming and humans are principle actors in this event.