I lied about you in some of the other comments.
I thought that you were not aware of the existence of scientific consensus; now I clearly see you are.
You probably do not understand science, though. What you called scientific method is just reason. It's not peculiar to science. It is just the faculty of being a human, scientist or otherwise.
What would be the purpose of applying scientific method (or reason) to science? How would science benefit from it? Everybody, scientist or otherwise, can apply reason. If science was driven only by reason, scientists would be out of business. Why would anybody need a scientist at all, if everybody is able to use their own reason, or make their own observation?
If science is to make any profit at all, it ought to serve somebody's personal goals. You refer to human nature in your post, yet it seems you do not understand it. Anything man is to get involved in needs to serve a purpose. The purpose of science is to popularise the ideas of the sponsor. Otherwise why would they be paying for it? You use Steemit to popularize your ideas, other people use science. Science is in the business of promoting unverifiable ideas (data about planets) for profit. I see absolutely to reason why science would be any other way. Science is not charity. More often than not it doesn't work pro bono.
RE: Scientific Consensus: This phrase should make you cringe. At least if you understand science.