Consensus and Anthropogenic Global Warming

Consensus and Anthropogenic Global Warming

As Blaise ascal once noted, once science is divorced from ethics, scientists will use
their skills to pursue power, not ruth.  Much of what is being reported today
about anthropogenic (man caused) global warming is exactly a case in point for
this. And why will scientists (some, ot all, of course) do this? Simply due to an underlying worldview, as best evidenced y the 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point, which stated, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Their solution, as Canada’s Free Press reports, was simple – engineer a massive
reduction in population and utterly change the socio-economic system through
centralized planning via total government control. This explains there very obvious
reason why global warming is invariably associated with the left, and why, for
example,  Nancy Pelosi famously claimed hat  Every aspect of our lives must be subjected o an inventoryof ow we are taking responsibility.” George Orwell could not have hrased this dystopian un-vision better!

The first cudgel in the warmers’ arsenal is that of claiming a “consensus.” How does the
consensus argument stand up to examination? First, science has never, ever
been decided by consensus. Rather, it has invariably been determined by
experimentation and hypothesis testing, tempered by a healthy dose of free, unconstrained peer-review. One eed look no further for evidence of this than by quoting as Galileo alilei, another contrarian astronomer once stated about the so-called
“consensus” of his age, In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the umble reasoning of a single individual.”  If one needs a more recent scientist saying
the same thing, look no further than the famed Richard P. Feynman, known for
his work on quantum mechanics and the theory of quantum electrodynamics, who simply oted that rather than consensus, “Experiment s the sole judge of scientific truth.” (Or as one writer at ummarizes Feynman, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or hat title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many apers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your ypothesis is wrong. Period.”  Unfortunately,
Al Gore, who flunked out of grad school in a humanities area, missed that
lesson. Ultimately, the real proof the global warmers use is spelled out by, which notes that “alarmists are right about climate change because larmists who believe they are right about climate change publish a lot of
papers that demonstrate how right they are about climate change.”

Similar to he observations made in Thomas Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolution, Paul Davies, in the  ntroduction to his book on Feynman, Six Easy Pieces: Essentials of Physics, otes similarly that “There is a popular misconception that science is an mpersonal, dispassionate, and thoroughly objective enterprise. Whereas most ther human activities are dominated by fashions, fads and personalities,
science is supposed to be constrained by agreed rules of procedure and rigorous
tests. It is the results that count, not the people who produce them. This is,
of course, manifest nonsense. Science is a people driven activity like all
human endeavour, and just as subject to fashion and whim. In this case, fashion
is set not so much by choice of subject matter, but the way scientists think
about the world.” And, unfortunately, there is one way to think about the world
– the politically correct way. Otherwise you figuratively or literally starve,
shunned and alone, under the modern day climactic Robespierres.

A couple istory lessons are instructive: In the 1800s, before Pasteur’s discoveries, Ignaz
Semmelweis insisted doctors wash their hands between obstetric patients. Deaths
dropped dramatically in his Vienna hospital. Unfortunately, as Wikipedia
blandly puts it, “Semmelweis’s observations conflicted with the established
scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the
medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they
should wash their hands… and (his hand washing) practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death.” Ironically, in 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died of septicemia, at age 47. And if one thinks death, or death threats, are hyperbole, look no further than Dr. Tim Ball, Univ. of Winnipeg climatologist, who spoke out against the warmists in a documentary titled The Great Global Warming Swindle. For his heresy, Ball has received death threats, such as: “If you continue to speak out, you won’t live to see further global warming…”  Ann Coulter
summarizes this sorry occurrence by noting “Global warming is supposed to be
“science.” It’s hard to imagine Niels Bohr responding to Albert
Einstein’s letter questioning quantum mechanics with a statement like: ‘If you
continue to speak out, you won’t live to see further quantum
mechanics…’”  Of course, in Coulter’s inimitable style, she then added about the faux religion of Greenism, “Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.”

Similarly, the “consensus” argument was also wielded by none other than Adolf Hitler and his Nazis (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or National Socialist
Workers’ Party) against Albert Einstein. Below is a screen dump of One Hundred Authors against Einstein, from  In response, Einstein simply noted, why 100? Only one would be needed, if his data were correct.  Sadly, the left and its warmers – as was said about the feckless Bourbon kings by Talleyrand –  have learned nothing, and they have forgotten nothing.

In sum,
the consensus has no merit, either historically or scientifically. Rather, it
is being wielded as a rhetorical device to hid the fact that the global warming
emperor has no clothes.