Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Scientific consensus

Why is anthropogenic global climate change (AGCC) about the only scientific topic where the "consensus of scientists" is still supposed to be the final word, shutting down any further discussion? You don't hear many other scientific topics described in that way.

Why is that?

I think it may relate to the worshipful way most people think of democracy. If "everyone" goes along with one way, it must be the right way.

But does that make sense?

"Ninety-seven percent of doctors agree: This medicine/treatment is all you need, there is nothing more to discuss on the matter! The science is settled!" How many times in the past has this been the case, only to be dismantled by those who didn't consider it settled?

"Ninety-seven percent of physicists agree that physics is done. No need to study or look for any more forces or particles. We know all we can know. The science is settled." And, again, how many times has this been claimed, only to be overturned by some maverick who wouldn't go along with the consensus of the crowd?

How often did the general population just accept the "scientific consensus" at face value-- to their detriment-- until the consensus was disrupted?

So, if "all scientists" agree that the climate is changing, the change is due to human activity, it will be a net negative, it can be fixed, and that governments are the only thing which can "save the world", then gullible people jump on that bandwagon. "All scientists" agree, so it must be true! Right?

Strange how this problem and their proposed solution gives power and money to those who are largely "funding" the research. If some other science issue could give this much power and money to States, how quickly do you think they'd discover some crisis that only governments could exploit... I mean, "solve"? Maybe if the climate change hysteria dies down, they will find another issue to exploit. Unless political government evaporates before then.


Writing to promote liberty is my job.
YOU get to decide if I get paid.
I hope I add something you find valuable enough to support.


  1. The term “scientific consensus" is an oxymoron. Science is a method of inquiry to advance knowledge and understanding that functions by the proposition of hypothesis that are either confirmed or discounted by the discovery of physical evidence that can be subsequently replicated by other investigators and thus provide the best current explanation for various phenomena. The word “consensus” is irrelevant to this process when it is used as a euphemism for “authority” or “majority”; neither of which has, in science or any other field, ever had the slightest relevance to truth.

  2. A question for Kent: Have you ever considered writing a non-fiction book, or at least publishing a collection of your essays? You surely have enough of them covering a wide variety of topics and issues, many of which necessitate multiple entries, and if you presented this idea to a publisher or two who target a liberty minded audience, you could very well have a best seller on your hands. Think about it.

    1. I have self-published a few. Here they are: link.
      And, it's funny you'd bring this up today, because just this afternoon I started messing around with the idea of a new book. Not sure if anything will come of it, but this is the first time in a few years I've even pondered the idea. Coincidence?

      Back when I wrote the others I looked for a publisher for a while. I couldn't find anyone interested and most of the libertarian authors I spoke to said they self-published or got a friend to publish for them. So I decided to just do it myself.

      As it stands, I sell a book every couple of months now. I'm not sure how many of the free ebooks have been downloaded-- I occasionally hear from people who got them.

      If you know of any publishers who'd like to talk to me about publishing either a collection of essays or something more focused, send them my way.