Global warming enthusiasts have reached a consensus of agreement. They know best how everyone else should behave.

But seriously… Did you hear the one about the consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by human produced carbon dioxide? It turns out, they all read the same book.

They may be right. I’ve got a little thermometer stuck to the outside of my kitchen window. For the last nine months now, it’s been 120 degrees out there. I’m afraid to leave the house. Luckily it didn’t heat up that much before the tree blew down and hit the side of the house last July. I wouldn’t have wanted to clean-up the mess in that heat. Then again, maybe it’s the tree’s fault. Maybe it’s the butterfly effect and that tree was the “tree that broke the climate’s back.”

I’ve heard a number of commentators, particularly Rush Limbaugh, deride the whole notion of consensus. “There’s no such thing as consensus in science,” they say.

With all due respect to my fellow realists, there has always been consensus in science. Science is also contentious. Most of the time there’s even contentiousness between consensuses. So I guess we realists have a contentious consensus. Or would that be a consensus of contentiousness?

There is consensus in science. Actually, there are two types of consensus in science.

First, there is the valid, verifiable consensus of truth-seeking science. Take gravity, for example. Everybody learns about it in school. Every scientist uses the same formula for defining it. There is essentially universal consensus about gravity, except for one thing. What causes it? The answer to that is still under contention. The facts concerning gravity, as we know them, are as true as true can be. It’s still only theory because true science accepts no absolute, definitive, final truth. We accept our current gravity theory as true because it works, all the time. It is verifiably, consistently predictable.

Second, there is the consensus of politically correct science. PC science is the science of facts. Facts are what the dominant authority says they are, true or not. Gravity is a true fact. Abortion kills a human being? True but not a fact. If it were a fact, it would be murder. If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. This is a fact. Is it true? We can’t know. It’s unverifiable. The truth is, it’s no more than a prediction. In practice, it’s a fact.

PC science is not new. If the ruling authority says the sun revolves around the earth, that’s what it does. It’s a fact. Ask Galileo. Or consider what Thomas Jefferson reportedly said after hearing about a meteorite: “I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven.” And I’ll bet more than one “witch doctor” has taken a spear in the back because he didn’t say enough nice things about the chief. PC science often suppresses true science. Much of what we readily accept today was, at one time, definitely not politically correct. This is not to say that PC facts aren’t true. They can be. Often times are. They just don’t have to be.

I thought about adding a third, popular consensus, but decided, among the public at large, there is no consensus when it comes to science. People out there believe a lot of stuff that is currently not accepted, in terms of consensus, as either fact or truth. This, however, doesn’t stop the PC consensus crowd from claiming it also has a popular consensus, as if that should matter to science.

Now, in our modern, high-tech world, PC scientific consensus generally includes what is accepted by true scientific consensus. It also includes a lot more. The burden of proof is less stringent. It’s like the difference between criminal court (truth) and family court (fact). In one, you’re innocent until proven guilty (false ’til proven consistently true). In the other, you’re assumed to be guilty but they might be persuaded otherwise. (believe the claim, better to err on the side of caution).

The whole environmental movement has prospered because it operates, almost exclusively, in the realm of PC scientific consensus. If you can convince enough of the right people that your hypothesis is correct, it becomes accepted fact. Laws can then be passed, grants bestowed, regulations established, agencies created, mitigation begun, based on this fact. If you can get enough scientists financially dependent on your eco-socialist dogma, PC consensus is almost automatic. Environmentalism has been so successful that it has corrupted what were once the most prestigious journals of true science.

In environmental science, you can start with a predetermined result, then design your experiments to achieve that result. Inconvenient, contradictory data can be ignored with impunity. You can take minimal information and speculate wildly, as long as you use a lot of “mays”, “mights,” and “coulds” when making your outrageous predictions. If someone notices a discrepancy in your presentation, or presents contradictory data; inventing an answer on the fly, though not recommended, is acceptable. It’s better to be prepared for these ahead of time.

The world of environmental science is filled with studies that are nothing but studies of other studies. These studies are then studied. This is followed by more studies of studies that studied studies. Each successive study cites all the previous studies as source material. You end up with a thousand studies, all saying the same thing because they’re all based on the one original study. That original study might read something like:

We found less fish at mile 48 than at mile 51. We speculated that this could be caused by a greater sediment load so tested both locations. The sediment count was 15% greater at mile 48 than at mile 51. We therefore think it likely that excess sediment loading is causing the lower than expected fish population at mile 48. Since mile 48 is adjacent to a cornfield, we believe the excess sediment at mile 48 may be attributable to erosion from this plowed field. We estimate that up to 45% of this excess sediment loading could be stopped by widening the grass buffer strip another 12 feet. A crop residue management plan would likely reduce runoff by a further 20-25%. Another 25% could likely be retained with a no-till program. Further study is recommended.

You think that’s funny? You think I just made that up?

Yeah, I did. But I’ve read enough of them to know, that’s what they tend to look like. Go read a few yourself. That’s your environmental science. In the end, nobody’s really tested the original hypothesis, but they all accept the findings as fact.

This is a deep-seated problem. For at least 30 years now, children have been going to school, elementary – college, and learning all sorts of dubious environmental facts. They carry these forward into real life, and, like gravity, they don’t have to be proven. They just are. They assume they work in the real world, without really knowing. Like most students, they accept what they’re taught without question. They’re conditioned to feel good about believing, and to distrust and shun non-believers.

Politically correct scientists and their minions are constantly telling us exactly what future results will be for specific actions. It doesn’t matter that they can’t possibly know. Like the light bulbs above, they run subjective calculations using subjective numbers to extrapolate a precise, projected result. Later, when results are different, it doesn’t matter because no one is measuring anyway. The projection is as good as the deed done. Global warming advocates can’t give you precise figures for how much hotter it will get, even if you give them precise figures to work from. Instead, they give you a spread with a lot of vague if/then statements. So how is it these same people can tell you precisely how much good you’ll do if you only follow there recommendations?

Environmentalists are masters of the art of deceptive analysis and presumed results. They simplify the complicated and complicate the simple. All in pursuit of, not truth, but what is really a social agenda. Global warming, a dubious claim in itself, can be reduced to something as simple as carbon dioxide in the air by these artists. You want to build a shed?

Well…, we’ll have to check your hardcover restrictions to avoid excess stormwater runoff. Since you’re near a floodplain you won’t be able to store any volatiles or chemicals unless you put it on a solid foundation and provide secure storage. You’re lucky. If you were in the floodplain you’d need to get a variance. Oh wait. I see you’re bordering an environmentally sensitive area, so if you want to put it within a hundred feet of this border you’ll have to get a variance anyway. To do that you’ll first have to go through the planning commission. If they approve it then the council has to pass judgment. Hold on, I see you have here a restrictive covenant requiring approval from your homeowner’s association. You’re going to have to get that taken care of first, then come on back. We’ll talk some more.

Still want to build a shed?

Yes, there is such a thing as consensus in science. It doesn’t mean they’re right. So how do you know what to believe? That’s hard to answer, but the more nonspecific and speculative sounding the language, the more reason to be suspect. If they’re claiming a problem needs fixing, that’s suspect in and of itself. If their solutions seem inordinately expensive or primarily require legal restrictions on you or others, it’s almost certainly a load of hogwash. If your first response to some assertion is: How can you possibly know that? You’re probably right. They can’t.

If I throw a rock in the air, I know it’s going to come back down. I can do this a thousand times and the result will always be the same. If I get sick tomorrow and decide it must be something I ate, that’s pure speculation. If I ate some week-old leftover tuna, it’s still speculation but with circumstantial evidence. If I go to the doctor, have a battery of tests done, and am told it was definitely the tuna, that’s a hypothesis with credible scientific evidence. If I go to three more doctors and they all say the same, that’s verifiable, repeatable scientific confirmation. Even then, they still could be wrong.

If you want to see a wonderful example of politically correct scientific consensus in action, watch the History Channel production A Global Warning? Just make sure your BS detector is turned-up to full power. I really liked the “controversial” hypothesis they throw out as a possible explanation for the retreat of the glaciers 12,000 years ago. No conventional theory for the cause of this event includes an extraordinary increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This doesn’t do much to bolster the cause of man-made global warming. Enter the comet, bringing with it just scads of carbon dioxide to overload the atmosphere. Sure, they acknowledge clearly that this possible explanation is “controversial,” but that doesn’t stop them from tossing it into the public discourse. It’s good for the cause.

Phil

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming: How It All Began
The Discovery of Global Warming
Global Warming: The History of an International Scientific Consensus
globalwarming.org
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Our Planet
Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Energy Star