"Geologists of the late nineteenth century assumed the Channeled Scabland formed during the time of great glaciers. Geologists thought that today’s large dry channels in eastern Washington were eroded by streams during the “ice age.” The thinking pattern of these early geologists was distinctly uniformitarian. They imagined very slow processes during immense periods of time causing erosion and sedimentation in the scabland’s channels. The Channeled Scabland was believed to be the product of geological evolution." "In 1885 T. C. Chamberlin asserted that an enormous lake had formerly occupied northwestern Montana and that the lake was impounded by glacier ice." "In 1923, J. Harlen Bretz, a geologist trained in Washington, suggested an outrageous theory for the origin of the Channeled Scabland. Bretz proposed a catastrophic flood hypothesis for the erosion of channels in the scabland, particularly the most spectacular channel, Grand Coulee" "The uniformitarian orthodoxy could not ignore the work of J Harlen Bretz, so a series of rebuttal papers were issued by some of the world’s foremost glacial geologists. A bitter debate among geologists occurred, spanning four decades." "The geologic establishment, for forty years, considered the catastrophic flood model for the scablands to be “unthinkable heresy.” By 1960, however, Bretz’s theory was generally acknowledged to be supported by the weight of the evidence." https://www.icr.org/article/washington-scablands-lake-missoula-flood/
The scablands had to be formed over thousands of years of erosion. It was patently obvious and there was no other logical explanation and then one day there was as more information came to light.
Science is constructed to be self correcting as fast as possible. I don't seen anything wrong with your example of science doing that. It took decades for Einstein's theories to be accepted, too. Finally, there was an eclipse that could provide measurable evidence. Einstein's calculations predicted that the light from distant stars would be bent by gravity by a specific amount. Previous physics predicted light would not be bent. Einstein's measrements were right on target. Science doesn't just jump to some new idea. And, it is definitely not stuck in some international conspiracy, either. AND, scientists LOVE it when they find counter examples. Today, physics faces a problem in that the different ways of measuring the cosmological constant don't agree. If the difference is real (and not just due to measurement errors of some sort) it means our physics probably needs to change! Cosmologists REALLY want it to mean we need new physics!! The "science just goes along with past ideas" is just plain BULL. Science would be BORING if it meant no more than agreeing with predecessors.
You keep turning to turn-of-the-century [1900s] science. Beyond that, it was a hypothesis, not something proven to be a fact. How many examples do you think we can cite of crackpot science claimed by people with no formal education in the subject? How many times has Joe Sixpack been wrong? Science evolves based on the evidence. But Joe Sixpack just blabbers about his feelings.
Some think the sudden enormous flood was caused by a sudden melting of glacial ice sheets from the impact of a comet or big asteroid hitting the ice age ice . Randall Carlson maintains this explanation along with a possible eruption of our star where it rained lightning .
What you fail to grasp or purposely avoid in the OP is the similarities to the uniformitarian rigid thinking of the scabland scientists to the current crop of AGW scientists and the fact that "all the scientists" can and have been wrong before so using the " all the scientists" say argument is null and void.
Actually if you do some research on this fascinating subject as I have, the thinking is Lake Missoula formed and flooded several times as the ice dam formed and was ultimately undermined causing catastrophic failure.
Yes it is And once upon a time it was believed that the world rode on the back of a turtle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_depictions_of_turtles Does that mean all religions are wrong?
What's fact and not belief is all the scientists were wrong for many decades and were so due to limited information on which to base their hypothesis just as with AGW scientists today.
So your hypothesis is that because scientists are not always right, then they are never right. I have yet to see anybody here say, "ALL the scientists say ...". They say, "the majority of scientists say ...", so your counter-argument is null and void.
History has also shown that scientists get things right a fair number of times. You wouldn't even be working on a computer if they didn't. But most Trump fans don't seem to understand that science is a PROCESS - not a set of absolutes.
And what makes you think that the current reports are operations on “limited data”? https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ Citations for just ONE of the ipcc. Reports is more that 1.1 mb
You are running from the premise of the OP. Just because "all the scientists" agree on something does not make it fact and that is a specious argument.
And what makes you believe climatologist are aware of everything in the cosmos that effects earths climate? We don't know what we don't know.
Which would put us in a condition of permanent inaction - "We don't know everything, so we can't plan for anything ...". Not buying it. It would be like like comforting the woman holding her child at Hiroshima ... "Don't worry, there are 10% of scientists who say that humans will never be able to harness the atom ...".