I think the point is: that has already happened. 97% concurrence among researches is about as close to objective truth as we can get in the postmodern world.
Sigh. I was about to use mod points. ^This is a problem. Postmodernism cannot mix with science (modernism), definitionally. It is no wonder this bullshit can be argued to infinity and nobody can agree. e.g. it doesn't seem to matter to those "pro" that the Roman period was multiple C's hotter globally than averages globally today, or that as another points-out it's nigh impossible to actually falsify this matter; and which people ignore is based largely on models which, even my buddies who occasionally take control of satellite networks as well as one who builds the models as a fundamental researcher, say "are shit"; compare the recent findings that just a few percent (like 1) of peer reviewers with bias can totally ruin the actual usefulness and scientific validity of supposedly validated (reviewed) papers...and a multi-billions-dollar industry of FUD to the politicians and nations and then think of all there is in this for researchers to make out like bandits...and you'll see that yes, this area is not only worth contending in, and criticizing everything...but probably start to suspect that many of the researchers really are full of shit. It's like biologists: if you want money you HAVE to tie it into evolution somehow, specifically a certain strain of the Darwinian theory resuscitated on the back of Mendelian genetics that Darwin himself would have called incompatible (and yes, professors of biology and other well-known researchers have spoken openly with me about this...and don't dare say so publicly: and they're not creationists either, just realistic about what the true believers whose god is science and science tells everything rather than being a transient body of material known barely and always under revision and so says nothing)...
There is not a lot of order in modern science, as it prides itself on being metaphysically incoherent...and it is therefore not science, at least not in the old sense. The best way to forcibly subvert and eviscerate all the bullshitting is to simply require tangible results and discovery of mechanisms...but that also isn't as exciting as theorizing existentially to construct meaning for the school of nihilists.
^And this sort of thing just pisses the scientific community off, which often engages in inconsistent ramblings where on the one time certainty is expressed, then on the other insists we can't know anything. Maybe because certain fundamental of science are theological principles of old, and on the other we wish to reject "mere philosophy" and its speculations in favor of having something tangible...but a "universe" requires unifying principles that...aren't compatible with many things cherished in modern scientifisdom.
Let the flaming commence (and perhaps other philosophically interested folks go on the attack). But speaking as a former formal student of biology...when you hear "evolution" you have to respond with, "define" and "define strictly, and don't apply to facts and processes and matters known or supposed that can be explained in other terms, e.g. selection mechanisms...and you'll quickly find much of the evolutionary community consists of bullshitters who are believers because mama and papa weren't religious nutjobs who burned them...but ingrained a deep seated pathological need to believe and have...a unifying principle.
Similarly, "climate science" (--another abuse of "science" usually preceding "says") is right now full of would-be saviors who truly believe in their mission...not actually in being gnostic-like searchers for what is the reality based on experimental analyses and proper metaphysical synethesis in order to produce a clear picture, and usually the only response to this^ is "the complexity is too great!!!" But of course so is all the crap Einstein summarized in his famous E= equation. The notion of elegance through abstraction is more lost on us all than most people, I think, realize.