What’s scientific about consensus?

I’m glad to see evidence that the scientific method is alive and well, at least in Japan:

Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN’s IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan’s native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

I’d like to see less “scientific consensus” (an oxymoron, IMO) and a few more fissures, before the economy is irreparably ruined. (As I’ve said, I’d also like to see the Precautionary Principle applied to the economy. And even national defense….)
When I was a kid, I used to respect scientists a lot more than I do now, and I was taught that the scientific method was based on skepticism, in much the same way as explained here:

In policy making, especially in a political arena, consensus building is a key ingredient. In attempts to make science relevant and useful, the politics of democracy tend to promote, even in some cases demand “scientific consensus.” However, as a “community of belief” develops, skepticism is no longer regarded as a virtue. In a civilization that is founded on science, this is an unfortunate state of affairs and detrimental to our future.
In order to appreciate this concern, it is necessary to revisit the central role of skepticism in science. Let us start with a dictionary definition of skepticism. Webster’s Dictionary defines skepticism as: “A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced; the scientific spirit.” The Greek root of skepticism is identified as “skepticos”, which means “thoughtful, inquiring.”

Well, that was then. Any scientist who publicly questions Global Warming today will become a renegade, lose funding, and will be lucky is he isn’t called a Holocaust Denier and threatened with a Nuremberg-style tribunal.
For those who are into scientific nostalgia, the above continues, with gems like these:

For centuries, science has been founded on well-established methods of scientific investigation, which include recognition that “A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to revision is not a scientific theory” (Judge William R. Overton, in Science, 1982). Thus, a basic tenet of science is for scientists to posit and test hypotheses and theories. Scientific progress is made by accepting or rejecting hypotheses at specified levels of confidence, thus embodying skepticism in the heart of scientific methodology.

Ah the good old days.
Today, science in the West has (at least in the context of Global Warming) been replaced with the crassest form of political activism.
It’s an ironic sign of decadence that the Japanese are pulling ahead.
Again.
MORE: I did not mean to imply that there were no American scientists who dare to question Global Warming theory. Here’s Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University:

We are told that only a few flat-earthers still have any doubt about the calamitous effects of continued CO2 emissions. There are a number of answers to this assertion.
First, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus but by experiment and observations. Historically, the consensus is often wrong, and I just mentioned the incorrect consensus of modelers about the age of the earth and the sun. During the yellow fever epidemic of 1793 in Philadelphia the medical consensus was that you could cure almost anything by bleeding the patient. Benjamin Rush, George Washington’s Surgeon General during the War of Independence, and a brave man, stayed in Philadelphia throughout the yellow fever epidemic. He worked tirelessly to save the stricken by bleeding them, the consensus treatment of the day. A few cautious observers noticed that you were more likely to survive the yellow fever without the services of the great man. But Dr. Rush had plenty of high level-friends and he was backed up by the self-evident consensus, so he went ahead with his ministrations. In summary, a consensus is often wrong.
Secondly, I do not think there is a consensus about an impending climate crisis. I personally certainly don’t believe we are facing a crisis unless we create one for ourselves, as Benjamin Rush did by bleeding his patients. Many others, wiser than I am, share my view. The number of those with the courage to speak out is growing. There may be an illusion of consensus. Like the temperance movement one hundred years ago the climate-catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, the leadership of scientific societies, the trustees of charitable foundations, and many other influential people to their cause. Just as editorials used to fulminate about the slippery path to hell behind the tavern door, hysterical op-ed’s lecture us today about the impending end of the planet and the need to stop climate change with bold political action. Many distinguished scientific journals now have editors who further the agenda of climate-change alarmism. Research papers with scientific findings contrary to the dogma of climate calamity are rejected by reviewers, many of whom fear that their research funding will be cut if any doubt is cast on the coming climate catastrophe. Speaking of the Romans, then invading Scotland in the year 83, the great Scottish chieftain Calgacus is quoted as saying “They make a desert and call it peace.” If you have the power to stifle dissent, you can indeed create the illusion of peace or consensus. The Romans have made impressive inroads into climate science. Certainly, it is a bit unnerving to read statements of Dr. James Hansen in the Congressional Record that climate skeptics are guilty of “high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Even elementary school teachers and writers of children’s books are enlisted to terrify our children and to promote the idea of impending climate doom. Having observed the education of many children, including my own, I am not sure how effective the effort will be. Many children seem to do just the opposite of what they are taught. Nevertheless, children should not be force-fed propaganda, masquerading as science. …

Read it all.
Sometimes, academic tenure is a good thing.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “What’s scientific about consensus?”

  1. JKB Avatar
    JKB

    Any scientist who publicly questions Global Warming today will become a renegade, lose funding…

    Forget today…Back in 1993, I commented that any scientist who theorized that global warming wasn’t happening couldn’t get funding to a boss who had just left a position funding grants for NOAA. His reply was that such theories weren’t valid so the funding would be wasted. This has been going on for a long time and is deeply ingrained in the “scientific community.”

  2. Hugh Avatar
    Hugh

    The scientific community has accepted that the popular and accepted “scientific” theories of History have mostly been badly flawed or completely in error. (All with much blustering and protest by “scientific experts” of the time.)
    Yes we have “Global warming” or perhaps “Global cooling”
    The historical cycle is ice age to ice age, we are between ice ages. There is no evidence that human activity created either the start or end of any previous ice age, but there is much evidence that both Global warming and Global cooling are facts of nature.
    There is no “scientific” reason to believe today that Global warming has changed from being a fact of nature to being created by human activity.

  3. Optimist Avatar
    Optimist

    It all hardly matters since global warming is a good thing, for people and for the ecosystem. It’s far preferable to cooling.

  4. Donna B. Avatar

    I fear global warming because there’s nothing worse than a martini without ice in which to stir it.

  5. rhhardin Avatar

    Science is based on curiosity, not skepticism.
    Anybody can be skeptical; but not everybody can be curious.

  6. Brett Avatar
    Brett

    In a time in which the academy seeks to rule the people, peer review is little more than collusion.

  7. Joe R. Avatar

    “I fear global warming because there’s nothing worse than a martini without ice in which to stir it.”
    Wow…now THAT is fearmongering. Now I’m nervous too.

  8. Loren Heal Avatar

    Consensus has value in science, but not as it is used in politics. Consensus in science is properly used to determine what I call the Zone of Agreement (or of Conflict, as needed). Inside of this zone we have settled on what we agree, while outside of it we have not.
    But in science there are no “facts”, there are only observations and reasoning from observations. So the Zone of Agreement is subject to challenge.
    What consensus is good for is setting the parameters of debate: who bears the burden of proof. It’s the one who would expand or contract the Zone.
    All this really means is that while it’s nice to say science doesn’t work by consensus, you have to start somewhere, with an accepted underlying reality. The scientist’s job is to peel off one little wannabe fact from that reality and see if it stands up to scrutiny.