Tuesday, 19 May 2015

Shrill Alarmists DENY Debunking of Consensus

As COP21 in Paris approaches the shrill alarmists are losing the argument.
As COP21 approaches, the Shrill are getting shriller.

But wait! Aren't we all gonna fry? Wasn't last year hyped up as the hottest year ever?

No, this has been debunked so many times, Marc Morano has a whole page of debunking links on Climate Depot - 

Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims

So, why are the Shrill Alarmists getting shriller? Shouldn't they be cheering because the planet is not facing the disaster that they prophesied? Or are they all, like James Hansen, working to a political agenda?

James Hansen, while he was working for NASA:GISS, was politically active:

Although Hansen has been a practicing scientist throughout his working life, he is also well known as a prominent environmental activist. He unashamedly promotes alarmism about the trivial levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, relating these to the prospects of environmental disaster, saying:“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal fired power plants are factories of death.” (link)
It is a political Agenda, not a environmental agenda, as UNFCCC chief Christiana Figueres admitted in a  Press Release in February (Link)
"This is  probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history. 
This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
Argumentum Ad Populum

The Shrill keep talking up the "scientific consensus" - an appeal to the majority.
In Philosophy 101, we learn about Argumentum Ad Populum (popular appeal or appeal to the majority): 
The fallacy of attempting to win popular assent to a conclusion by arousing the feeling and enthusiasms of the multitude.  
There are several variations of this fallacy, but we will emphasize two forms.
  • "Snob Appeal": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion by appealing to what an elite or a select few (but not necessarily an authority) in a society thinks or believes.(There are many non-fallacious appeals in style, fashion, and politics--since in these areas the appeal is not irrelevant.)  
  • "Bandwagon": the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true.

Consensus is non Scientific 

Was Michael Chrichton a scientist?

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
On consensus, Chrichton wrote:
“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.”

Dr Gordon Fulks 

We mentioned James Hansen above. James has a very similar academic career to Dr Gordon Fulks. However, James entwined his science with politics. Gordon and James agree on many points. Hansen's senate address in 1988 was on the historically hottest day and,on purpose, they turned the air-con off. Hansen has been arrested at protests during his career with NASA:GISS.

On the other hand, astrophysicist Dr Gordon J Fulks, with his similar background  to James Hansen and others promoting the CAGW hoax, has never accepted ANY money to promote or oppose any theory because that is unethical, and he is considerably more experienced than most who have.

On consensus, recently Gordon wrote:

Science is NEVER about consensus and belief in any form.  Those who invoke such arguments are operating in the realm of politics and religion, probably because their science is weak.  We would never say that the earth is round because the majority of scientists believe it is.  We would simply produce a photo of the earth taken from the moon! 
For those who refuse to understand that science is not a consensus activity, I like to talk about Albert Einstein, Alfred Weggner, Harlen Bretz, Barry Marshall, and Robin Warren, among others. 
For those who think that the professional societies are the ultimate authority, I like to remind them that they are really labor unions looking out for the best financial interests of their members.  
Freeman Dyson, an English-born theoretical physicist and mathematician, wrote in his book Dreams of Earth and Sky 
In the history of science it has often happened that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.
It was ever thus.
Galileo Galilei “In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” 
and yet the shrill are clinging to this last frail clay foot of their clay catastrophic climate claim

Consensus Debunked

The "97% consensus myth" is one of the most debunked myths of the shrill. This blog has written and recorded many refutations of the myth, including inter alia:-

Many others have exposed the flawed studies published to prop up the Consensus Myth and yet the Alarmists, the shrill keep pushing this flawed unscientific myth.

Will they ever revert to honesty?