Ok, the minority view was wrong in this particular case. Minority views were also right in some other cases.
"Climate change denialism" - what's this? Is there any scientist out there who thinks that Earth's climate is stable in the long run?
"Climate change denialism" - what's this? Is there any scientist out there who thinks that Earth's climate is stable in the long run?
The parent post gave an example of a case where some credentialed scientists continued to dispute the HIV-AIDS link well after the balance of evidence was against them.
Many people would say there was a "consensus" on the HIV-AIDS link despite the continued skepticism of some scientists, and that this scenario has parallels with climate science.
Can you offer a counter example, where a holdout group of scientists who disagreed with consensus in their field were proved right?
Call it "climate science denialism" if you prefer. It's no different from AIDS denialism.
Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa in 1999-2008, listened to the denialists' views about the AIDS outbreak. He had an AIDS advisory panel staffed with consensus critics -- just like Trump and Pruitt are doing. The estimated number of premature deaths due to Mbeki's counterproductive actions is around 300,000.
here you go
What do you see as the paradigm shift that turns climate science on its head and proves the consensus wrong?
Good thing, isn't?