The scientific consensus on the causes of global warming, for example, is that global surface temperatures have increased in recent decades and that the trend is mainly due to human greenhouse gas emissions.    Science historian Naomi Oreskes published an article in Science, which reported that an overview of summaries of 928 scientific papers published between 1993 and 2003 did not rehabilitate those that explicitly disagreed with the notion of anthropogenic global warming.  In an editorial in The Washington Post, Oreskes stated that those who were opposed to these scientific discoveries reinforce the normal extent of scientific uncertainty about any fact in an appearance of major scientific disagreement or lack of scientific consensus.  Oreskes` results have been replicated by other methods that do not need to be interpreted.  Finally, over the past four years, he and his representatives have overturned or misled dozens of other environmental rules, practices and international agreements. This decision went hand in hand with a multi-party agreement to give all registered voters the opportunity to vote by mail or withdraw one at an early stage, as reported by the Louisville Courier Journal. While vaccination experts largely agree, debates on the safety of GMOs continue and the fate of Pluto was decided at the last minute by a minority. It seems that obtaining a scientific consensus is a mixed pocket. To me, this means a new meaning, to what extent it is true that the vast majority of climate experts agree on the cause of climate change. One of the most influential challengers to this approach was Thomas Kuhn, who instead argued that experimental data still provide certain data that cannot fully integrate into a theory, and that counterfeiting alone has not led to scientific changes or a breach of scientific consensus. He proposed that scientific consensus works in the form of ”paradigms,” which were interconnected theories and underlying assumptions about the very nature of the theory that linked different researchers in a particular field. Kuhn argued that it was only after the accumulation of many ”significant” anomalies that the scientific consensus would enter a ”crisis” phase. This is where we would look for new theories, and ultimately a paradigm would triumph over the old – a series of paradigm shifts instead of a linear progression towards the truth.
Kuhn`s model also emphasized more clearly the social and personal aspects of the change in theory and showed, using historical examples, that scientific consensus was never really a matter of pure logic or pure facts.  However, these periods of ”normal” science and ”crisis” are not mutually exclusive. Research shows that these are different types of practice, more than different historical periods.  According to the IAEA, the agreement has three main points that Iran has all complied with. The theory of evolution by natural selection is also supported by an overwhelming scientific consensus; it is one of the most reliable and empirically tested theories in science.   Opponents of evolution argue that there are significant differences in development within the scientific community.  The ratchet strategy, a plan to promote intelligent design, depended heavily on seeding and was built on the public`s perception of the lack of consensus on evolution.  ”97% of climate scientists agree that humans are the cause of global warming.” This statistic, which at first seemed to be the definitive proof of the world`s climate policy, did little to end the social and political divisions on this issue.