Most models of scientific change are based on new data generated by scientific experiments. Karl Popper suggested that because no amount of experiments has ever been able to prove a scientific theory, but only one experiment could refute one, science should be based on counterfeiting.  Although this is a logical theory for science, it is, in a sense, “timeless” and does not necessarily reflect a view of how science should progress over time. Some areas, such as the licensing of certain technologies for public consumption, can have significant political, economic and human implications if scientists` predictions go wrong. However, to the extent that the policy is expected to reflect, in a given area, competent and relevant data and well-accepted models of observable interseating relationships, there is little good alternative for policy makers than to rely on as much of what can legitimately be called “scientific consensus” in policy development and implementation. , at least in situations. where the need for political intervention is imperative. While science cannot provide an “absolute truth” (or even its addition to “absolute error”), its usefulness is linked to the ability to steer politics towards a high public good and far from public damage. From this point of view, the requirement that the policy be based solely on “scientific truth”, which has proven to be the “scientific truth”, would be a recipe for political paralysis and would, in practice, amount to engaging in the acceptance of all the quantified and unquantified costs and risks associated with political inaction.
 Indeed, our research and those of a few other independent research teams have shown that this is particularly important because; (a) perceived scientific agreement is an important “gateway” cognition that plays a decisive role in public opinion and b) the transmission of scientific consensus on socially controversial issues – including climate change and vaccine safety – has a strong effect on the reorientation of public opinion with experts (Ding et al 2011, Lewandowsky et al 2013, van der Linden et al 2014). , 2015a, 2015b, Myers et al 2015, Hornsey et al 2016). We are not proposing that the mediation of scientific consensus is a miracle weapon, but it is an easy-to-explain fact that has been found, on the whole, in reducing the “consensus deficit” (Cook and Jacobs 2014), in the fight against reasoned arguments (Bolsen and Druckman 2015) and in protecting the public from influential misinformation. There are many philosophical and historical theories about how scientific consensus evolves over time. Given that the history of scientific change is extremely complicated and because there is a tendency to project “winners” and “losers” in the past compared to our current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to develop precise and rigorous models for scientific change.  This situation is also extremely difficult because each of the different scientific branches operates in a slightly different way, with different forms of evidence and experimental approaches.   The scientific consensus that humans are responsible for global warming has probably exceeded 99%, according to the lead author of the most important study on the subject, and may continue to increase after separate studies that dispel some of the remaining doubts.