Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’

The Stream ^ | Jay Richards

[freedumb2003]

This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as much early on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage.

If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists.

How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other.

“Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink?

When can you doubt a consensus? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.

We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored.

So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it?

Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.

(1) When different claims get bundled together ... (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate ... (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line ... (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish ... (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them. ... (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented ... (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists ... (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus ... (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution ... (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies ... (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible ... (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus ... Adapted from THE AMERICAN. This piece has been updated since its original publication.

[exDemMom]

I do not know how fast the end is coming, but it IS coming.

If the climate change alarmists get their way, the end will come sooner rather than later.

Carbon dioxide is essential for life on earth because every living thing is made of molecules that started out as carbon dioxide. In the distant past, the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide was much higher than today (in the percent range, not ppm range). Throughout geologic history, various processes have locked that carbon dioxide into forms that are not biologically available, decreasing the quantity of carbon available to living organisms. The low concentration of CO2 in the air makes it more difficult for plants to use--just like you would have trouble breathing if the oxygen content of the air dropped. If the global warming activists get their way and implement these "carbon sequestration" schemes on a large scale, thereby pulling CO2 out of the air, plants will start to die off. Then everything that depends on plants will start to die off, too. I'm afraid that "global warming" activism is an existential threat to life on earth.

[Skooz]

bfl