What is Consensus Science? And why do I care....
By debrakcarey
@debrakcarey (19887)
United States
March 27, 2011 10:42pm CST
I encourage you to read this short speech given by Michael Crichton at Cal Tech. if you doubt Mr. Crichton's credintials, google him. They're up to par.
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-03-10/deming.htmThe
What is the politicalization of science.
It means scientists who sell out for political gain or monetary reward.
It also means to use those said scientists to further a political agenda.
Michael Crichton said:
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks.
Another quote by Michael Crichton:
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.
Now we're done with background, on to the discussion topic.
Many notable scientists disagree with the current stand of our government on global warming. There are 700 dissenters that went to Congress with a petition:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
They have been denied funding and their livelihoods threatened.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3a9bc8a4-802a-23ad-4065-7dc37ec39adf
So here's what I think, see if you agree; science has been hijacked by politics. And we are once again being sold a bill of goods by politicians.
3 people like this
5 responses
@kenzie45230 (3560)
• United States
29 Mar 11
I would call "consensus science" junk science. He's right when he says: 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.
Science has definitely been hijacked by politics. Just like teaching has been. And medicine.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
29 Mar 11
philosophy, religion, family life, business and investing...I'll let everyone else have a chance. 
2 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
3 Apr 11
First of all I agree that there's no such thing as "consensus science"; You're right, science is science. However, you probably won't be surprised to know I disagree with some of the rest of what you wrote...lol! I also have yet to find anything on which I agree with Senator Inhofe. I'm sorry, I'm just not a fan and given his long held views against any kind of climate legislation I think his being the chairman of that committee is worse than the fox guarding the henhouse.
That doesn't mean I don't respect his or your or anyone else's opinions on the issue. I'm not a scientist and I won't pretend to know more than I know about something. However, I DO believe in erring on the side of caution and therefore even if there were only a very small chance that Al Gore and others who share his views were even close to being correct I believe we need to do all we can to correct the problem or at least TRY to keep it from getting worse.
The thing with science is most everything starts out as a theory and much research is usually needed before a theory can be declared to be an absolute fact but once there is a considerable amount of evidence supporting a theory - even if not all scientists and members of the public agree with the theory - it's still very difficult to prove a negative.
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
8 Apr 11
I guess I'm the cynic in this one but I tend to believe Inhofe is looking out for one person and one person only - INHOFE. We also disagree about former Vice President Gore; I didn't think he was a bumbling idiot at all! Anyway, I don't think it's fair to attack an entire "movement" because some people dislike one of its more visible and vocal spokespeople. A lot of people don't practice what they preach and shame on them but that doesn't mean the sermon wasn't any good.
I don't know much about science but I know enough to see the polar ice caps are melting and the polar bears are losing their habitat and that's just one example. Our climate has changed and is changing, of that I have no doubt. I saw lightning bugs in my back yard on New Year's Eve! I don't think anyone should go crazy and outlaw all cars or anything like that but I DO think that until and unless it can be absolutely proven that humans have NO EFFECT on climate change whatsoever we owe it to future generations t do whatever we can to stop and hopefully maybe even reverse some of the damage that has been done to our planet.
You're right about people standing to make a lot of mo9ney from this issue but it goes both ways. The oil, coal and gas companies contribute huge amounts to politicians to keep them on the side of the climate change deniers.
Annie
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
9 Apr 11
They're playing on our good and decent side annie...they are banking on the fact that we care.
read this:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/deweese121404.htm
and this:
http://www.rolf-witzsche.com/peace/global/canada/global_warming.html
and this:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2007/10/no-consensus-on-global-warming.html
I got these links just by googling 'no man made global warming'. Try it when there is a disagreement, you'd be surprised what you may find out or learn.
1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
3 Apr 11
Look at it this way for just a moment. Play 'devil's advocate' with me;
First, the one who does not rush in to pass any and all legislation SHOULD be the one overseeing the comittee. I'm the cautious type and think that that is just good politics. For one thing, do you know anything about what would change in YOUR daily life if cap & trade or carbon taxes were in effect? He does, and perhaps he's looking out for us? You say you would rather err on the side of caution in science? Why not in politics?
Second, The consensus scientists want us to be afraid, and I think they've accomplished that in most, like you, who don't know much about science. If we are afraid we'll agree to anything. Think 'patriot act' for a minute. Now, I'm all for being responsible citizens of the world and taking care of the enviroment. That's just common sense. But to use fear to get people to do so and politicise science is not acceptable to me. IF we are to find truth in the matter, why are those who disagree with man made global warming attacked by Mr. Gore. Why are not all theories investigated completely. Why the underhanded smears and ruined careers just because someone disagrees? Al Gore btw...lives a very non green lifestyle. And if you remember him from his VP days, he was a bumbling idiot. I don't think he suddenly grew a huge IQ and now is an expert on this. He's a spokesman for other interests. You and I are not experts in science. Neither is Al Gore. What's his field of study and where is he published as they say in the scientific world? When one voice is effectively silenced by the other, I have to wonder why.
Remember the Catholic Church which was the 'authority' at the time of Galileo? Put them in the politicians place of today. They tried very hard to 'silence' Galileo. They went so far as to put him under arrest and ban his writings a heretical. It was a very big deal in its time, its probably one of the most quoted reasons for the antagonism between religion and science today. YET, our government is doing the very same thing to thousands of scientists today by withholding grant money, smearing reputations and keeping voices of dissent on the global warming issue quiet in anyway they can legally do so. WHY? Lives of many have been ruined by this controversy.
So, I tend to think as you know I do, that our government is wrong on this. I think some big people stand to make a lot of money off it in the global economy. I think that we should listen to ALL the facts and not leave science in the hands of politicians.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
28 Mar 11
*shaking head*....
Well after all, they don't want us to think.
@dawnald (85135)
• Shingle Springs, California
29 Mar 11
And then they'd have to acknowledge our existence (not necessarily in a nice way)?
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
29 Mar 11
you're beginning to sound like ME!!1 person likes this
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
29 Mar 11
because then we would actually EXIST (I think therefore, I am)
1 person likes this
@cx258641 (109)
• China
28 Mar 11
i partially agree with you
whether we like it or not, the world we living have change a great deal in the last hundred years, it is likely to change even more in the next hundred,anyway even if one want to one can not the clock back to an early age, even if all the government money for research were cut off and the present government is doing it best, all it would do is slow down the rate of change in science and affect the way how we understand it, why not say politics itself is living under the wing of science, it is a branch of science, come to thing of it what the science bring to us, moving faster, been fitness , spend uncountable hours setting in front your tiny screen till neck ache, what's more it's help us reveal the science behind it's veil. in fact politics protecting and promote a certain group's benefit. the same essential of science exploring, apple Inc only serve the one who have enough to buy it.
in short ,science are natural eternal principles politic just a small portion of which can be the elements of the science explore.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
28 Mar 11
Science is suppose to be objective. If scientists are bribed to say something is one way when its not, so politicians can then in turn pass oppressive tax laws, is that right?
And if scientists who care to tell the truth and publish dissenting findings and conclusions are punished, is this good? Science is suppose to be objective RIGHT?
Sorry to me science is about truth. It should not be twisted to conform to political machinations.
@RebeccaScarlett (2532)
• Canada
28 Mar 11
It's not just their livelihoods; the scientists who speak out are also having their lives threatened, in many cases.
Another thing nobody like to talk about: while one major ice sheet is shrinking (those poor polar bears you see on tv) others are actually growing larger year by year. The cause is not global warming, but rather a reversal of ocean currents that happens, according to geological evidence, every couple thousand years. Why is England usually warmer than cities at the same latitude in North America? Because and ocean current carries warm water from the equator straight towards England. But sometimes this current changes and heads somewhere else for "a while" (which can be hundreds or years or more) and then England's climate changes. So: snowstorms that we consider "freak" storms because we've only been recording weather and temperature and climate for less than 200 years.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
28 Mar 11
Lying is also omitting facts. And a lot of that is being done, not only in this issue but in all issues we fact today.
