RE: Do you truly understand science? Okay, do you understand an appeal to authority falacy?
The scientists are doing science, and are convinced by the data. The average rant on the internet is done by someone who has little idea of the science, or of the data.
For example:
How many climatologists actually pay attention to the sun activity?
To which the answer is virtually all of them. Solar irradiance is an important factor in their models. To suggest climate scientists are somehow ignoring it, is just naiive.
Typically, along with sunspot number, solar irradiance undergoes in 11 year cycles. In the past decade, for example, we've seen a much less flux than we normally do. That's something the scientists can, and do, accurately measure.
Climate scientists don't just do it for greenhouse gasses and solar irradiance, they do it for all different 'forcings', accurately quantifying them and their effects. They are they worried about CO2 and antropogenic effects precisely because they have actually done that work.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-basic.htm
This is a generalization. Back up the statement with statistics rather than opinion and it might be something more than that.
I suggest reading what I wrote.
If a person follows the scientific method they are a scientist.
If they do not follow the scientific method they are NOT a scientist.
No degree, lab, or fame can change any of that.
There are many people using the label scientist these days that are not practicing the scientific method.
There are also people regularly using phrases such as "the science says", or "scientifically" without the scientific method being involved in any fashion.
That is not science. That is someone hijacking the word to try to lend authority to their agenda.
Scientific journals are full of scientists painstakingly providing their evidence.
This is still an appeal to authority. Scientific journals have within the last few years been studied by universities and found to be publishing a lot of of false information as well. Whether someone writes something in a journal, a book or not, does not suddenly make it correct.
At many points in history the majority of the scientists have believed false things which are then disproven.
Even Einstein had to fight against that.
I'll state it again, because you seem to be missing the point.
If you follow the scientific method you are practicing science and are a scientist.
If you do not follow the scientific method then you are NOT a scientist.
Nowhere in the scientific method does it say anything about being published in journals or consensus.
Those increase probabilities, but they themselves do not meet the burden of proof.
NOTE: I have not stated my stance on the issues you seem to be pushing. I've stated what a scientist is, and is not. You in turn keep presenting me with appeals to authority which actually don't change anything I said. They also have nothing to do with the scientific method.
A person or journal does not have "magic" powers to make a thing true.