BewaConsensus Science

> "Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus
>
>is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the
>science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists
>agrees that E=mc2.
>
Um, yes we do. We get several hundred attempts every year by somebody
trying to publish a paper in our journals that claims "Einstein was
wrong", in ways that defy the scientific consensus. If you don't believe
the consensus, you'd better have some really really strong evidence that
puts it in doubt. There are weak anecdotal counters to one issue or
another (for example the much-hyped hockey stick graph, which is
basically irrelevant - the evidence in question is the record of the
last 150 years, which is not in doubt) but NO strong science argument
against human causation of global warming has stood the test of time.

>"Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once
>you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything
>is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization
>against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In
>another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you
>subvert science to political ends."
>
To my interpretation, Crichton is talking about politicization; i.e.
manipulation of science by politicians. Well, what do the politicians in
the US think about, say, global warming? The US senate renounced Kyoto,
as did our current president. The politically powerful in the US are
almost unanimous in their conesnsus against human causation of global
warming; one senator recently called it a great hoax. And yet the
scientists are almost unanimous on the other side. Where's the
"Lysenkoism" here? Much more worrisome on those grounds are what the
Bush administration has been doing to mess with science by stacking
panels with political appointees; the medical community has been
particularly appalled by some of the actions recently taken.

>[...]
>
>The only road to salvation I see it the extension of scientific
>methodology to public discourse and the refutation of bad science.
>
But what are your criteria? Did you read the AGU statement? Did you read
the science behind it? It's a very very strong case. If, after years of
disputation, essentially all the climate scientists have come to
agreement sufficiently to make this statement, why are you so opposed to
it? You say our salvation is in applying scientific methodology - well
let's apply it! Science is not about anecdote, it's about the weight of
the evidence. Exceptions should be looked at and understood, but only in
the context of the big picture. Have you or any of the rest of us read
any substantial part of the climate literature? No, of course not - but
AGU members certainly have. We see in the media highlights of what the
politically powerful want us to see, and here in the US, the politically
powerful very much want us to believe it's a hoax, so any contrary
evidence gets hyped to the skies.

By the way, did you see the AGU statement highlighted in any US media? I
know I didn't - the only place I heard about it was on the BBC.

Arthur