by Selwyn Duke
What do you get when you combine copious amounts of government grant money, layers of dishonesty, the heat of environmental activism, a few dollops of ambition, and a glaze of science in a political pressure cooker?
It’s a recipe for enriching a few, impoverishing most, and serving up bad policy all around.
If you’ve ever wondered why you’re buried in snow but keep hearing about how we’ve experienced “officially, the second warmest year on record” (when we’re not being told it could be the warmest year on record), know that “officially” relates to the pronouncements of officials, and “official temperature records” have been “systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.”
Fox also reported that the NOAA fell back on an old argument when defending its manipulation, writing, “Government climate scientist Peter Thorne, speaking in his personal capacity, said that there was consensus for the adjustments.”
One might first note, as The New American has reported before, that “consensus” itself is often manipulated, a good example being the debunked claim that “97 percent of scientists affirm anthropogenic global warming.” Even more significantly, however, citing scientific consensus is just a version of the argumentum ad populum fallacy — and it is a thoroughly unscientific appeal.
Late author Michael Crichton expressed this truth brilliantly in a 2003 Caltech lecture, saying, “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.” Crichton pointed out that consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one, stating that science “requires only one investigator who happens to be right.” He continued, “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.”
Read more @ The New American