While the author comes across as supporting the consensus, the paper presents some insightful perspective on the ‘consensus enforcement’ by the establishment and why a substantial portion of the public is not buying the expert consensus on climate change. It boils down to a lack of trust, and concerns about deceit, conspiracy and groupthink.
Where do these concerns come from? Climategate and explicit advocacy by scientists are two obvious sources. Disagreement portrayed in the media and distrust of the government’s politicization of the issue are others.
Yes, the lack of trust and concerns are well justified.
I could not find it in a hurried search, but Richard Fineman has a classic piece on why consensus is antithetical to science. will search for it after work and get back.
Search will be more productive if “Richard Feynman” appears in the predicate.
The term of venery for a “group of experts” is a groupthink.
Nonsense, scientists are more evolved human beings who don’t need religion to be ethical, which means they are the most moral enlightened beings to ever grace the planet. They are never wrong and if they are, it is only because they didn’t realize how right they really were. To question them would be uncivilized. You really ought to be respectful and know your place.
Everyone should watch this documentary about the environmental movement to save our planet from greedy old white men who want everyone to die and be miserable. This is the best documentary about the environmental movement ever made.
For what, 1500 years? Ptolemy was the expert on orbital mechanics. By the middle ages, to go against Ptolemy one risked excommunication from the Catholic Church. OK, sure, it wasn’t a perfect theory, just needing a few epicycles to make things line up… ok, maybe a few more epicycles… and a few more…