Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Climate Consensus Con Game
American Thinker ^ | February 17, 2014 | S. Fred Singer

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: agw; climatechange; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 02/18/2014 10:07:22 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
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.

Bingo!

2 posted on 02/18/2014 10:14:10 PM PST by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law and does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Science is based in PROOFS.


3 posted on 02/18/2014 10:15:24 PM PST by mylife (Ted Cruz understands the law and does not fear the unlawful.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Once upon a time, there was a scientific consensus that the Earth is flat.

Global warming is a hoax and everyone knows it.


4 posted on 02/18/2014 10:24:00 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

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.


5 posted on 02/18/2014 10:30:48 PM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TBP
Global warming is a hoax and everyone knows it.

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.

6 posted on 02/18/2014 10:42:02 PM PST by Bernard Marx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
Supreme Court may rule on guns outside the home

It may soon be easy to carry a permitted concealed handgun in California John Lott

Rules for voting, firearms, and government services should all be heavy — or light.

When The Government Targets Constitutionalists

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

7 posted on 02/19/2014 12:32:49 AM PST by neverdem (Register pressure cookers! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

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.


8 posted on 02/19/2014 2:09:26 AM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

“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.


9 posted on 02/19/2014 3:00:55 AM PST by outofsalt (If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mylife

In reality, science is political. Whatever it is that is rigorously subject to truths is something quite different.


10 posted on 02/19/2014 3:04:51 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice

btt


11 posted on 02/19/2014 3:13:01 AM PST by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
I think Einstein was brilliant, but I never got an answer to the question "How can a universal constant be based on an Earth time division?"

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?

12 posted on 02/19/2014 5:27:46 AM PST by gr8eman (Neptune, Titan, stars don't frighten!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Thanks for the ping!


13 posted on 02/19/2014 9:06:01 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Fred Singer is worth paying attention to. I’ve been reading his works for years.


14 posted on 02/19/2014 9:57:39 AM PST by sauropod (Fat Bottomed Girl: "What difference, at this point, does it make?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard Marx
The globe has been warming for at least 13,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age.

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.

15 posted on 02/19/2014 7:12:32 PM PST by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: FReepers; Patriots; FRiends






"Climate Change" = new term for their hoax "GLOBAL WARMING"!

Free Republic is Your Voice and Your Forum!
We Really Need and Appreciate Your Loyal Support!
PLEASE Make Your Donation This Evening, Monthly, if You POSSIBLY & RELIABLY can!

16 posted on 02/19/2014 7:16:27 PM PST by onyx (Please Support Free Republic - Donate Monthly! If you want on Sarah Palin's Ping List, Let Me know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; alrea; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Green billionaire puts $100M political muscle behind climate push

Obama: ‘Unchecked’ Carbon Pollution Before 2009 Had ‘Severe Impacts on Our Weather’

Obama wants more fuel-efficient trucks on US roads

Sky High Electricity Rates Coming, Obama Official Warns

Executive Branch Pushes for Global Warming Rules

Climate Change: John Kerry's biggest boogeyman

John Kerry Uses Mockery To Deal With Lack of Evidence Of Global Warming (Postscript)

ZoNation Vid: Warming Us Up to Globalism

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

Latest from CO2 Science

17 posted on 02/19/2014 10:52:41 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Colorado: the Maryland of the Mountain West)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So one has to be rather careful and always ask: What is the exact question for which a consensus has been claimed?

And which "scientists" did they ask? People who knew something about the subject or "political scientists", IOW whores?

18 posted on 02/19/2014 11:20:09 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gr8eman

Really, really, really big slide rules. Probably so big, they needed a lawnmower engine to move the slide.


19 posted on 02/19/2014 11:24:36 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson