Replies

The use of consensus is totally contrary to the scientific method. Hypotheses must be tested continuously by experiment under different conditions and with different researchers. This idea that global warming is driven solely by CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a poor hypothesis and to quite deliberately hide the original tree ring data so no other group can analyze it and manipulate the real data so it fits the hypothesis is totally unscientific.

Consensus can also be used to hinder scientific inquiry. At the beginning of the Renaissance a consensus of scholars believed the earth was the static center of the universe and that the sun and planets all revolved around the earth. This view became dogma and was enforced by the Inquisition. Anyone who denied this consensus was declared a heretic and pursued by the Inquisition. Galileo used scientific method and his own telescope to prove the consensus wrong and narrowly escaped burning at the stake for his heresy. Even his book was suppressed for hundreds of years. The parallels between the man made global warming alarmists who label anyone who disagrees with their dogma a "denier" is obvious.

The use of consensus is totally contrary to the scientific method. Hypotheses must be tested continuously by experiment under different conditions and with different researchers.

The problem is that we started calling AGW a fact and not a theory, and a weak one at that, which it clearly is. Kuhn's book is an historical look back at science. It's well worth reading. Especially the chapter on the "priority of the paradigm".

Very well said, though there are among us here on FR, (Roman Catholic apologists, for the most part) who might take issue with the Galileo reference.

What is indeed a parallel, is the challenge which "climate change" (AGW) skepticism brings to the religion currently attempting to assert authority.

That religion is of course today environmentalism, which becomes a form of Gaia worship in some of it's most extreme (and shallowest?) expression.

Any 'religion' other than that bad old Christian one...(it was against Galileo(!) See? that proves it's wrong(!))

Give us some of that old time "earth majick" religion. Repackage it as 'science', and claimed consensus which even the plow-boys of today can understand (and be priests of!).

Forget a Creator God. He's old news. Stale. Immaterial (not made of material). But still somehow stale.

Earth Goddess(s). Feminism. What-everism. Just no Christian witness or testimomy. We'll take Jesus as long as he's just a mythical figure which we can replace with goddesses more to our fancy.

Distract 'em with that junk, then give 'em hard socialism (communism repackaged for today's masses). Enforce it by UN mandate. Transfer wealth from those whom offend the earth goddess(s) to people in far lands, to assuage the guilt of living in a prosperous nation.

Did I say "it's for the children?"

Major UN Climate Program “Basically a Farce”