Publications as Scientific Evidence

In reading on global warming, I've seen the type of argument Think Progress uses in different places:

Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to prove. It demonstrates that the prevailing operational paradigm in this domain of science research is global warming. OK. I didn't think that was a matter of debate, but OK. That is not the same as evidence in favor of the theory, which is how Think Progress tries to use it.

Science is no different than any other domain. There is an established orthodoxy that is generally accepted, and those who question that orthodoxy are left out in the cold. Peer reviewed journals are reviewed by those who follow the orthodox viewpoints. Therefore, it is hard to get a paper published that questions that orthodoxy. For this reason, you won't find too many papers on steady state theory in cosmology or astronomy journals.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's how science works. The community comes up with a paradigm that is generally accepted and the researchers in the field pursue their research along those lines. That paradigm inevitably runs up against problems and things it cannot explain, at which point some outside-the-box thinker comes up with a brand new paradigm to explain it, and is then met with opposition and resistance by the establishment until the mounting inability of the current model to explain becomes overwhelming, at which point the community goes kicking and screaming into accepting the new paradigm. Witness the rise of quantum physics in the 20th century, which was so traumatic to the physics community that even legendary thinkers like Einstein were left behind because of their refusal to accept the new order. That new order only came about because (a) classical physics just couldn't explain a growing list of phenomena, and (b) renegade physicists kept coming up with explanations, using quantum theory, for the same list.

But as the same history shows, having a certain paradigm as the generally accepted, orthodox viewpoint is not the same as having proof of that paradigm.