The climate on Planet Earth is always in a state of change. Consensus has not yet been reached as to how much of that change can be attributed to natural factors and how much is due to human influence.
'Scientific consensus' is often cited as the predominant proof of anthropogenic climate change, often referred to as ‘global warming.’ It is certainly the case that the overwhelming majority of scientists attribute current warming trends to human impact. It is also true that scientific consensus, even a unanimous consensus, can be in error. Questions of who and what should be considered relevant in the debate, and how the named effect should be defined, often remain as sub-camps of the group promoting 'scientific consensus' as meaningful to the issue.
By definition, the 'scientific method' always leads to a test that can be independently verified, and the test always has both a pass and a fail state. Questions of what measure we should use to determine global temperature, and what tests we should create to determine whether man plays a significant role in changing any measured temperature reading, often remain as sub-camps of the group promoting the 'scientific method' as meaningful to the issue.