@xianc78
>That's not how science works.
Except it kinda does. Scientist A comes up with an hypothesis. He tests it, perfects it, constructs a theory, tests it some more, publishes it. Other scientists peer review the theory, test it some more, over and over again. If their tests fail, the theory is disqualified. At which point scientist A can try to mend the theory or abandon it. And if the theory is at a point where experiments and tests pass successfully, it is now a valid theory by which "science" understands the workings of a particular subject, and it remains the prevailing theory until it fails to pass certain tests or until scientist B constructs a theory that is better in some form (usually is able to create more accurate predictions) and then the process starts all over again.
But you constantly deal with scientific consensus in the form of peer review.

Consensus here isn't a matter of personal opinion. It's a matter of does the theory withstand the attempts to falsify it, in what areas does the theory hold, where doesn't it hold. For instance the consensus regarding Einstein's theory of general relativity has withstood over and over again the attempts to test the space-time warping effect that gravity has. Every year or so you'll find another group of scientists trying to measure more and more precisely the warping of space-time caused by gravity, and each and every time the measurements comply perfectly with the predictions from the theory. That's where the consensus is formed, in the data from actual measurements.

But then you're gonna argue that 3% found the theory to be wrong. You can have 2 possibilities here:
1) the 3% did some very specific experiments for some very specific conditions, where the theory might break down. For example who know very well that Einstein's theory simply doesn't work inside singularities, like black holes. You don't even need proper measurements or experiments, cause the thing doesn't even work mathematically. In such cases, the 97% will peer review the findings, redo tests for these very specific conditions, will be able to certify the findings and a new consensus eventually forms that states: theory A works for most conditions, but doesn't work for these specific condition, where the theory breaks down, and we need to search for something else to explain it. This is why science has been looking for a quantum theory of gravity because Einstein's theories can't explain what's inside a black hole.
2) the 3% are just plain wrong. They're testing the exact same thing everyone else is testing, but because something in their methodology is wrong, they get faulty results. And when the rest of the 97% try to peer review they simply can't replicate the results, because the 3% did "bad science". Instead the 97% keep getting results consistent with the established consensus.

>How many of those "reputable sources" are funded by organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation?
Probably much less than you think. Also who the fuck is James Corbett and why should I even waste a second on a nobody who's highest credentials is a humanities degree and the proud owner of a blog page?