The climate science contrarian community has mobilized the full spectrum of emotional appeals all intended to reject science and shut down critical thinking.
From the Alt-right Bannon and his Breitbart absurd fabrications, that the faithful embrace with uncritical passion.
To the voices appearing that present themselves as sober clear headed arbiter of scientific validity.
One of latter’s most misused memes is
“My choice is to choose factual science over consensual science.”
Doesn’t that sound good.
After all isn’t consensual science something like consensual sex - all in the eyes of the perpetrator - er, I mean participant?
Or is it a red flag warning that we are dealing with a disingenuous deliberate misinformer?
What this little contrarian meme leaves out is that scientific consensus is wholly built upon the body of evidence and facts.
It also ignores that the consensus is subordinate to the facts and that the consensus evolves according to the incoming FACTS.
WIKI: “Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.
Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity.
Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others), and peer review.
Although for a better introduction to the topic:
“Scientific Consensus: Why Should We Accept It?”
Robert Sanders, September 25, 2016
REACHING A CONSENSUS ON CONSENSUS
A scientific consensus, in general, is what most scientists believe to be true about a certain issue based on their interpretation of all of the evidence that we have at our disposal. In other words, it is the collective answer of scientists to a particular question. ...
Hence, the birth of a scientific consensus isn’t subject to a majoritarian rule. It actually signifies the fact that a great many scientists from different backgrounds have considered the question at hand and have reached similar conclusions.
That doesn’t mean that science is a panacea—it doesn’t mean that science is perfect or always 100% correct. It is important to remember that science is adaption; it’s change. But what it does mean is that we have a pretty good understanding of how things work, and it will take a mammoth amount of evidence to change our current understanding. ...
... In short, a scientific consensus tells us things that we have already learned, and it lets us know when things have stopped being debated in the sciences.
LETTER • OPEN ACCESS • IOPSELECT
Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature
John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce
Published 15 May 2013 • 2013 IOP Publishing Ltd
Environmental Research Letters, Volume 8, Number 2
Here’s a change for the https://skepticalscience.com detractors to step up with their “facts” (not distracting hot air!) if they want to dispute this paper.
So can anyone explain what the gripe with the EXPERT’S COLLECTIVE UNDERSTANDING, that would be their consensus, is?
Here’s an example: Experts’ Collective Understanding is that the earth is spherical and revolves around the sun. Their understanding is not subject to unsupported claims to the contrary.