On Scientific Consensus and Climate Models

In my previous article, we left off with liberalism and ideology in regards to environmentalism. You will recall that ideology trumps facts and thus rendering opposing points of view meaningless. These groups that push an ideological agenda will always ignore the facts and marginalize anyone that should not fall into lockstep with their beliefs.

We left off with the “scientific consensus” and the computer climate model fallacy and it’s where we will continue.

What is consensus? Merriam-Webster defines it as “a general agreement, or unanimity”. It can also be defined as “group solidarity”, depending how one uses the word. Does this sound like a word that should be used in the world of science? After all, many scientists do come to a general agreement on many topics and subjects; however, they always leave room to change that general agreement should any new evidence be discovered.

All it takes is one person to change it, that one eureka moment.

What is science? Again, we go to that reliable place called Merriam-Webster and we see several definitions. The definition we are most interested in is this:

Knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.

Revisiting our initial question, we begin to see the flaw in “scientific consensus”. How can a group seek knowledge covering general truths occur if that group relies on consensus when doing so? They can’t. The definitions of consensus and science, by their very nature, negate each other if used together.

Science demands that evidence be verifiable and results be reproducible in the real world, not twenty, fifty or even a hundred years in the future. Yet, we always hear that scientists are in a consensus because computer climate models are predicting world wide catastrophe decades in the future. If evidence can’t be verified and results from said evidence can’t be reproduced with the methodology being used, then predictions are meaningless.

Computers can do wonderful things that assist us in making our day to day lives easier; what they are not is crystal balls. It is a tool, not unlike a mechanic’s wrench or a surgeon’s scalpel and if used incorrectly computers can produce false data or a scalpel can cause irreparable damage. How a scientist (what I refer to as modern day Nostrodomus’s) uses the climate modeling software determines what the results will be. If worst case scenarios are placed in the software, then it’s rather obvious that worst case scenarios will be the result. What one has to understand is that computer climate models are only one part of method, they should not be relied upon by themselves for results.

When these dire predictions fall on the ears of the uninformed, they paint a picture of doom and gloom. When the uninformed make an attempt to get more information, they are bombarded with more doom and gloom from environmental extremists that feed off it. Trying to convince the uninformed turned radical becomes more and more difficult.