"Consensus reached on climate change causes,'' trumpets
The article goes on to inform us that this new IPCC report reaffirms the earlier IPCC prediction of 3°C global warming by the year 2100. Yet, the models upon which this prediction is based predict over 0.5°C warming from greenhouse gases during the past century -a warming that has definitively not occurred (see AtE 22-1 pp 2-3).
How can these 140 people reach total agreement to support a highly speculative hypothesis that has completely failed its only experimental test? What is going on here?
This phenomenon transcends "global warming,'' transcends the self-interest of a group of scientists whose funding depends upon "global change,'' and transcends the political interests of those who wish to use carbon dioxide control as a lever for world power and social engineering through suppression of energy availability. This IPCC "consensus'' is exemplary of the growing ascendancy in science and human affairs of the negative human attribute - peer pressure - which is being mobilized as the "consensus process.'' Physical reality - the only phenomenon for which scientific investigation has proved useful - is describable by statements that are either true or false. Understanding of a few truths has given scientists and engineers the ability to manipulate the physical world in simple ways that humans find desirable. The physical world, however, does not conform to what scientists
hope is true or what scientists agree is true. It conforms only to what is true.When a scientist adopts the positions that "global warming'' will devastate the planet, or HIV virus will exterminate mankind, or germs do not cause disease, or the earth is flat - or that carbon dioxide is actually enriching the environment, HIV virus is benign, some germs do cause disease and surgeons should wash their hands, and the earth is round, each position is either true or false.
Access to Energy
, for example, adopts positions on truth or falsehood in many scientific subjects that are not yet fully understood. It is not possible that we will be right about all of them. We give our arguments and references, encourage readers to draw their own conclusions, and hope to find and correct our errors quickly.The most important thing to realize is that, in each case, truth exists. Knowing the truth is often difficult, but it is always there. Two plus two is four. It is never five. Even if a consensus building exercise of school children should reach agreement that two plus two is four and a half, the true answer is always and immutably four. The opinions of any individual or group are irrelevant to this true fact.
Human history is awash in outrageous examples of the foolishness of large crowds of humans that have been overtaken by their herd instincts, peer pressure, imagined self interest and wishful thinking. Both ancient and modern science have often advanced as a result of one individual who recognized the truth when everyone else did not.
A mundane example of peer generated mediocrity occurs thousands of times each year in the "peer review system'' of U. S. government research funding. There, each review decision sinks to the lowest common denominator of a committee of "scientists'' with nothing more interesting to do than sit on government committees.
Yet the nonsense that truth can be determined by getting a crowd of humans together, inducing them all to agree, and then calling the result a "consensus'' decision has gained wide acceptance.
The Founding Fathers recognized the moral truth that humans have a right to certain freedoms. They protected these freedoms by forming a Republic. An effective attack upon that Republic has been made through the notion of "democratic justice'' or democracy. This notion holds that human rights are subject to majority vote. Any tyranny whatever is apparently justified if one can induce a majority of humans to vote for it.
The problem is, however, that even in this age of tax-subsidized government funding and sophisticated mass media propaganda, it is usually not possible to get unanimous agreement. Short of exterminating the minority, ideas unwanted by the elite leadership are still present in the background waiting to assert themselves."Consensus'' is promoted as a solution for this - not just in science, but very broadly in our society. The "consensus process'' works as follows: First, a well-defined and carefully thought out decision is adopted by individuals who seek community approval for a certain course of action - usually a course that benefits them.
Second, a sub group is selected and advertised as representative of the whole - such as the 140 "top researchers'' in the global warming consensus. This group is designed with a substantial majority already in agreement about the desired decision and inclusion of those most easily subject to peer pressure. In science, pressure from the peer-review funding process and peer-review publication system is effective.
Third, the group functions in a facilitated atmosphere where the well-established methods of pressure can be applied. Dissent, if still present, is stifled or ignored. Voting is not usually allowed. The consensus process moves beyond voting, since an aura of unanimity is important to gaining public acceptance of the decision.
Fourth, having sociologically engineered an agreement, the leadership advertises the consensus decision widely and forcefully in order to give it a society-wide credibility and to weaken potential dissenters who were not participants in the consensus group.
Consensus opinion has no relevance whatever to scientific truth. As I write this, a large flock of semi-wild turkeys (introduced two years ago here by a State program) is gobbling in the yard outside my window. One gobbles and the gobbling spreads infectiously through the whole flock - by consensus. The consensus, of course, is not always wrong. Their concern is well-founded. Thanksgiving is coming.
|
|
Vol. 22, No. 3
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 22, No. 3 Date: November 01, 1994 02:33 PM Title: Consensus
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|