Skip to comments.Climate Consensus Con Game
Posted on 02/18/2014 10:07:21 PM PST by neverdem
At the outset, let's be quite clear: There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) -- and there never was. There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly. So what's all this fuss about?
Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus. Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein. [Another way to phrase this issue: Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.] In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.
The degree of consensus also depends on the way the questions are phrased. For example, we can get 100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe in climate change?" We can get a near-100% consensus if the question is "Do you believe that humans have some effect on the climate?" This latter question also would include also local effects, like urbanization, clearing of forests, agriculture, etc.
So one has to be rather careful and always ask: What is the exact question for which a consensus has been claimed?
Subverting Peer Review
Finally, we should point out that a consensus can be manufactured -- even where no consensus exists...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Science is based in PROOFS.
Once upon a time, there was a scientific consensus that the Earth is flat.
Global warming is a hoax and everyone knows it.
So what’s all this fuss about?
Acid rain, the population bomb... folks love to think that Mighty Mankind is making a difference.
It lets non-scientists feel powerful and lets scientists make the Big Bucks as consultants in the world’s New Priesthood.
Meanwhile, Mother Nature goes right along confounding the “experts” as always.
That's the kind of imprecise thinking that dooms our cause. Global warming is *not* a hoax. The globe has been warming for at least 13,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age. The hoax is that humans are causing it.
The real tragedy is Americans' lack of scientific education, especially in geological processes. The evil apparatchiks who took over our education system in the 1960s have made sure authentic scientific education has been suppressed in favor of Marxist groupthink.
Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
To point this out....Einstein’s concept of a static universe...held ground for roughly eight years until the first guys (mid-20s) came around to say that it can’t be right. Somewhere by the late 1920s....the second guy came out with fairly substantial proof that the universe is forever in an expanding role....which means this theory that Einstein put forward (fancy chalk-board stuff)...could not be right.
At that point, Einstein got peeved (as much as a physicist could be)....refusing to believe guy or the proof laid out. For another decade or so...Einstein’s static universe theory got dragged out in papers whenever copy got thin and you needed to fill stuff up with another brilliant moment with Einstein. The community was mostly split by the late 1930s. And the static universe idea came to a complete end with zero belief by the early 1950s. Strangely enough...no newspaper announced that the Static Universe concept was dead....they just refused to mention it.
If you walk into a science course today at most universities....they probably will mention it...if you take a physics class...but it’s a fifty-fifty game if it’s a astronomy class.
All of this points out the obvious....nothing in science is absolute, or guaranteed. So, when you say this is cold-hard-science, and no peer review required, then you can pretty well say that it’s bogus and a bunch of WWE-wrestler type characters have accidentally become renown scientists. Sadly, this group of scientists....are con men. Pure and simple. And their basis of science? Creating fake stuff that have no validity.
If you asked me...do we have an overabundance of scientists in the world? I’d say yes. We probably need to retrain some guys to handle the gas-pump, dig septic tanks, and run pool-halls.
“We probably need to retrain some guys to handle the gas-pump, dig septic tanks, and run pool-halls.”
Well, the climate change idiots do seem to have a knack for digging deeper and getting crap to flow uphill!
I have always been fond of the saying, “One should respect plumbers as much as philosophers as neither theories nor pipes hold water.” I’ll take a good plumber over, “climate scientists” any day.
In reality, science is political. Whatever it is that is rigorously subject to truths is something quite different.
Anyway, to me, the real geniuses were guys like Planck and Boltzmann who identified constants down to 1 x 10^-9 without a calculator. How did that happen?
Thanks for the ping!
Fred Singer is worth paying attention to. I’ve been reading his works for years.
Not precisely. It warms and cools. Thirty years ago, we were being warned of an impending Ice Age. That was a hoax, too, and everyone knew it. Similarly, the doctrine of global warming is a blatant hoax. What we have is a cycle of warming and cooling, largely related to sunspot activities.
And which "scientists" did they ask? People who knew something about the subject or "political scientists", IOW whores?
Really, really, really big slide rules. Probably so big, they needed a lawnmower engine to move the slide.