Consensus

A few weeks ago I was at the Center for Strategic and International Studies listening to Kurt Campbell warn about the dangers posed by global warming. To emphasize his point Campbell stated that scientists, which he described as typically being a timid lot, have reached an unusual degree of consensus around the issue of man-made global warming and its dire consequences. The clear implied message was that this scientific consensus should be regarded as sufficient evidence to override any doubts and press ahead with enormously expensive efforts aimed at heading of the global warming catastrophe.

To that I would answer via the late Michael Crichton:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

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, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. 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. . . .

Exactly. Global warming and its human influence is not proven scientific fact, so forgive me if I don't rush off in favor of initiatives that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to address the issue.