Scientific consensus
Why is anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) about the only scientific topic where the "consensus of scientists" is still supposed to be the final word, shutting down any further discussion? You don't hear many other scientific topics described in that way.
Why is that?
I think it may relate to the worshipful way most people think of democracy. If "everyone" goes along with one way, it must be the right way.
But does that make sense?
"Ninety-seven percent of doctors agree: This medicine/treatment is all you need, there is nothing more to discuss on the matter! The science is settled!" How many times in the past has this been the case, only to be dismantled by those who didn't consider it settled?
"Ninety-seven percent of physicists agree that physics is done. No need to study or look for any more forces or particles. We know all we can know. The science is settled." And, again, how many times has this been claimed, only to be overturned by some maverick who wouldn't go along with the consensus of the crowd?
How often did the general population just accept the "scientific consensus" at face value-- to their detriment-- until the consensus was disrupted?
So, if "all scientists" agree that the climate is changing, the change is due to human activity, it will be a net negative, it can be fixed, and that governments are the only thing which can "save the world", then gullible people jump on that bandwagon. "All scientists" agree, so it must be true! Right?
Strange how this problem and their proposed solution gives power and money to those who are largely "funding" the research. If some other science issue could give this much power and money to States, how quickly do you think they'd discover some crisis that only governments could exploit... I mean, "solve"? Maybe if the climate change hysteria dies down, they will find another issue to exploit. Unless political government evaporates before then.
Thank you for helping support KentforLiberty.com.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support. If so... Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!
Find me on Patreon
Well, don't go around any physicists and shout
Einstein was wrong, Tesla was right.
But AGCC isn't even science.
The formula (which has failed every year) has not been released to other scientists to study, analyse and tear apart.
The entire thing is shouting a lie long and loud enough so that people believe it.
Fortunately, no one will be talking about AGCC in a couple of years. We will be too busy trying to survive the ice-age that we have entered.
I don't want an ice age until cloned Pleistocene megafauna are roaming the world again! But then, bring it.
XD
Adult children running the world, being steered through group think and fear. These people will never exercise their higher minds nor use logic to see what is in plain sight to see.
While the "argument from popularity" (I don't know if that's the proper name for this fallacy) is a nice talking point, it's not even true in the case of climate change. What I see is a bunch of non-scientists jumping up and down and screaming, and they hate it when actual climate scientists say something like "now hold on a minute, the situation is a bit more complex than that." I go into more of that in one of my opinion pieces, and the gist is that the expert opinions are being drowned out by alarmists and secular doomsday prophets, many of whom are young women who are experts at nothing but getting attention. I don't think there is a scientific consensus when it comes to climate change, to be honest. Besides, how is a freaky-eyed Swedish teen-ager screaming at fellow westerners going to fix what's going on in China? This isn't about the climate, it's about the Ethical State, the "character" of western nations, or more precisely, the virtue signalling of those with the loudest voices.
I agree.
Also-- That was a good opinion piece. Thanks for linking to it.