We constantly hear
about a “consensus”
on catastrophic
climate change.
The primary purpose
of claiming a "consensus"
is to shut down debate.
“Consensus" means
“general agreement”
or
“group solidarity in
sentiment and belief”,
according to a dictionary.
A consensus can be
based on data and
other real evidence.
A consensus can also be
nothing more than
unproven beliefs,
and groupthink.
Scientists are prone
to groupthink, just like
regular people !
Many scientific beliefs
now known to be false,
once had a consensus.
Consensus
"believers"
"believers"
never like
to be questioned,
to be questioned,
and that behavior
did not start
did not start
with believers in a
'coming climate
'coming climate
change catastrophe'.
No one should trust
a scientific consensus
before they have studied
the science themselves.
Even then, at some time
in the future, that consensus
is likely to be found to be
wrong -- ranging from slightly
wrong, to completely wrong !
Science is never "settled" --
if it was, we'd no longer
have a need for scientists !
What happens if you don't
know much about climate
science ?
What happens is you can't
review the science, but you can
look for suspicious behaviors
by the people who support
and promote the consensus belief.
If you're shopping for a car,
for an off-topic example,
but you know almost nothing
about cars, hearing a salesman
say: "I have one of these at home",
is suspicious behavior !
Here are examples
of suspicious claims:
(1)
Bundled claims:
The climate change example:
The planet is warming,
and the warming is man made,
and the warming is going to
cause a climate catastrophe.
Agreeing there has been warming
in the past 325 years, doesn't mean
agreeing on what caused that
warming, or whether the future
warming will be a catastrophe.
The smarmy goal of bundling
climate change claims is to
pressure people to "take sides"
-- either believe all the claims,
or none of the claims.
(2)
ad hominem
chracter attacks
on skeptics:
It’s easier to insult a person,
and claim they are not worthy
of debate, than it is to debate
them on the supporting science,
... or junk science.
The character attack labels
of “denier”, "science denier",
and "climate denier", are the
most common examples
used by climate alarmists.
When believers of
a scientific consensus
"debate" the skeptics
with character attacks,
that's very suspicious
behavior.
(3)
Scientists are pressured
to join the consensus:
Threats concerning
tenure, job promotions,
and government grants,
media criticism,
and negative
Wikipedia entries,
all erect barriers
around what opinions
are acceptable, and
will avoid "penalties".
(4)
Peer review
is "pal review":
Consensus scientists prevent
publication of dissenting ideas,
not based on faulty science,
but based on the fact believers
can't stand a diversity
of conclusions.
This issue was mentioned in
several ClimateGate hacked
e-mails in 2009 and 2011.
(6)
Misrepresenting
peer-reviewed studies:
The 97% consensus claim
was based only on bogus
"studies", that either ignored
dissenting studies, or
misinterpreted them.
In 1992, former Vice President
Al "The Climate Blimp" Gore,
confidently declared,
that in his climate fantasyland:
"The time for debate is over.
The science is settled.”
In 1992, a real life Gallup poll
“reported that 53% of scientists
actively involved in global
climate research did not believe
global warming had occurred;
30% weren’t sure; and only
17% believed global warming
had begun".
A Greenpeace poll in that era
showed 47% of climatologists
did not think a runaway
greenhouse effect was imminent;
only 36% thought it possible and
a mere 13% thought it probable.
(7)
The use of computer models:
Models don't produce data.
They produce whatever predictions
the programmers told them to predict !
We already have 30+ years
of experience, with computer
model climate projections
that did not match reality.
(8)
Claims we have to act NOW
-- there's no time for debate !
Carl Sagan used to say:
“Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary
evidence.”
Claims that we must act now,
and getting more hysterical
every year, are the opposite
of extraordinary evidence.
(9)
We keep being reminded
there's a scientific consensus.
But a consensus
is only a popular vote.
It is NOT evidence.
A consensus
is NOT relevant
in real science.
A "consensus"
is only important
for junk science !