Add to favorites Examiner Bio

The fallacy of consensus

Global Warming: nothing more than political hot air 

            

             Having spent the majority of my college career skillfully navigating my way around my science and math requirements, I can safely say that I am not a scientist. Though I am no Archimedes, I am a rational observer of the scientific community and, as a sentient human being, am susceptible to their discoveries and assertions. Indeed, that which the wizards in lab coats decree has the ability to shape policy and affect the lives of everyone. Presently, the breathless dictum emanating from on high is that mankind is warming the planet, causing the oceans to rise, and killing the polar bears.

 

            Once again, I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to know any more about global warming than the next person. What concerns me is the assertion by the dogged proponents of manmade global warming that the debate is “over” because a “consensus of scientists” believes it to be occurring. In my opinion, to declare a debate over and refuse further discussion is to reveal that the argument is weak and cause people, like me, to question any further assertions.  As the great, and sadly recently departed, Michael Crichton once said, “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…. 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." Indeed fact is not a part of consensus, rather only the majority opinion.

 

            The consensus used to believe that the world was flat, that there were witches in Salem, and that the sun revolved around the earth. I am inclined to see what others are saying on the matter and there are many, highly regarded scientists who are skeptical of manmade global warming. Unfortunately, the debate has become highly politicized and agenda driven.

 

            To power-hungry politicians, anthropogenic global warming is manna from heaven. How to stem its effect is their long sought after question for the solution they have always had: more state control, more taxes, more regulations, and more opportunities for self-aggrandizement, a la Al Gore. The propagation of this initiative is greatly hindered by debate and inquiry, thus a fascistic oppression of dissent has become the order of the day. Paul Joseph Watson has written eloquently on the topic: “The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads - global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.”

 

            While there is little doubt that the planet has warmed slightly, nobody can know for sure to what this can be attributed. The lack of unquestionable proof, outside of a majority opinion, requires more investigation, an engaged populace, and a transparent scientific debate. For, the policies promoted by those adhering to this hypothesis (that temperature change is manmade) are far-reaching and oppressive. Let us be certain that we have something to fear and/or that our actions will make a difference before we institute some of the most drastic initiatives a free society has ever considered.