Science v Consensus

[Tazeeyore]

When it comes to the issue of global warming, it seems that there are three different types of people in the world: those who want to do something to put an end to it, those who don’t believe in it at all and those who really don’t care what happens.

But what do you get when a country’s government finds itself in the process of passing legislation on a topic recent studies have proven to be a myth?
One in the U.S. Senate, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, and the Boxer Substitute Amendment on the side, may do just that.

“The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act calls for the largest tax increase in American political history and, arguably, is the largest re-distribution of wealth ever,” Wheeler said.
In a U.S. Senate Committee of Environment and Public Works (EPW) press release issued on May 20, Ranking Minority Member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the Lieberman-Warner bill doesn’t, in any way, stay out of American’s pocketbooks. “Lieberman-Warner will redistribute over $5.6 trillion from American consumers to pet congressional projects. Despite paying for the trillions of dollars mandated by this cap-and-trade scheme, American families and workers will only receive back $800 billion in consumer tax relief—$7 paid for every $1 returned,” Inhofe said.

After releasing the 12-page study of charts, graphs and findings to the public, some 31,000 scientists from across the United States read, researched, and accepted this report to be as close to truth as scientifically possible.

In turn, all 31,000 have signed a petition “urging the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals,” according to the Petition Project’s website.

More:
http://www.aim.org/briefing/global-warming-follies/

[DoctorDoom]

But man-caused Gorebull Warming is settled. There is no more argument. AlBore is making millions from it. That should be proof enough that it's serious. :rolleyes:

<hr>http://sitewave.net/news/MaryEllenGilder.htm

Chrichton comments

However, Michael Crichton (best known for his novels but also a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies) warned his audience of the dangers of "consensus science" in a 2003 speech,

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.

"Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus."


Crichton states, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're being asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?" He goes on to point out:

"Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

"But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon….

"Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it."

[Naturalized-Texan]

Aliens Cause Global Warming (http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)
Michael Crichton

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period. {My emphasis}

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

...................

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

[DesertFox]

:claps:

Good on Mike Crichton.