So tempting to give a snarky and realistic answer, but it's an honest question, so:

Observations are made and evidence is collected to prove or disprove a hypothesis, said data and conclusions are eventually compiled and disseminated so that other researchers can test the derived hypothesis and/or build upon it, and if it can be proven often enough and with precision...there's a general consensus.

Well, I'll be a little snarky: What damned peer review? There's been scandal after scandal about that entire subject, and I've seen minimal reforms made.

Getting to what I feel you were endeavoring to imply, namely that I'm some kind of asshole denier trotting out my bullshit with some ribbons and frosting: I'm not.

Pretty damned apparent that there's been some significant changes; went from SUPER POLAR VORTEX to "It's like spring outside, weird!" in the middle of December.

I'd have more sympathy if the people in question were marching on places like the Chinese Embassy over their emissions - it's pretty bad when satellite imagery shows a gigantic plume of smoke drifting across the Pacific.

Or their own damned universities.

Or the headquarters of these half-assed paywall journals who gouge people left and right...an already underfunded researcher shouldn't have to scrape up thousands of dollars to publish, and academia needs to lose this "but muh prestige!" bullshit.

Perceived prestige shouldn't matter, publishing shouldn't be a treadmill researchers are chained to for funding, and that blame isn't on the current administration, the past administration, or even frickin' Betsy DeVos.

It's on these colleges and the people who remain complicit with the things going on in them.

Let's see some howling about all that, and I might be more inclined to get on board with their supposed "movement".