They see science as 100% political and hence subject to a 'majority rules' political mandate. The author (Ruairí Arrieta-Kenna) is a student at Stanford with a degree in political science and a minor in 'race and ethnicity.' He obviously has no scientific training, because he has no clue that science is based on logic and evidence only, not authority and consensus. You might think that he would suspect that authority and consensus are logical fallacies because that has been known since the time of Aristotle. But in our Post-Modern world, I doubt that college students ever pay attention to the wisdom that has been with us for forty centuries.
They certainly will never understand what Nobel Laureate in Physics Richard Feynman meant when he said "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" or what Albert Einstein meant by "One man can prove me wrong." And they have likely never heard the motto of the British Royal Society: "Take no one's word for it." That expressed the determination of the Fellows to avoid the domination of authority and to make decisions based on data gathered by experiment.
In his book "Fashionable Nonsense," the well-known Professor of Physics and Mathematics Alan Sokal talks about how Post-Modernists go so far as to deny the value of truth. They certainly do not care in the least what the truth is about Global Warming or anything else in science. It is just a means to a political end. And they have no conscience about wrecking science in the process because they feel that it is not relevant to their existence.
Kenna is correct that the segment of the public that believes in Global Warming does so because they think that others do too. Studies of attitudes show that those who profess belief do so primarily because they believe that they have the scientific community behind them. Hence the need among propagandists to keep that myth alive. But if Kenna had actually read Maibach's study of attitudes among the professional members of the American Meteorological Society, he would have realized that the consensus is weak and nowhere near the claimed 97%. Furthermore, those who support it do so for the wrong reasons: their Leftist politics and their belief that everyone else believes as they do. Skeptics, in contrast, argue the science. That makes their position far sturdier, a conclusion that bothered Maibach. He was looking for a weakness in skeptics, not in alarmists!
As we discovered after the Korean War, those who have been brainwashed find it nearly impossible to unlearn the propaganda that has been drilled into them. Only the most intelligent can do so. But they are the ones who likely did not succumb in the first place.
Dr. Fulks wrote this in response to this article: