Do the Climate Deniers Also Deny Our Role in Destroying the Ecology?

[sean miguel]

you said "Of course sharks, especially the man-eating variety, should be feared." Now you're saying they don't intend to eat the people. So which is it?

Is there really a difference? By man-eating, I mean sharks that have been documented to attack and kill humans, whether they are on the menu or not. Dead is dead.

 

[mikexmoran]

Are there really climate change deniers? I thought everyone pretty much agreed that the climate was changing, but the argument was if it was caused by man.

My background is Economics, so I'm certainly not qualified to weigh in on the science of it.

I would think that pollution is a bad thing though. Right? Is that something everyone can agree on? If it is and I think it is, then wouldn't we want to limit pollution as much as possible.
That being the case - why are we really arguing? Combat pollution. Of which the US contributes and other countries do as well.

Seems like we're arguing semantics everything I see this stuff. I'm just a North Eastern dude in academia, so ...whatever.

 

[Will E Worm]

Here, have a coloring book and let the adults do the talking:

http://postimage.org/]http://s27.postimg.org/hdu2jqor7/011_preschool_coloring_book.gif[/QUOTE]

:facepalm:


Watch the videos.

Then listen to the audio. Gore knows he's been caught telling lies.


[B]Al Gore A Pervert And Sexual Predator[/B] [b][url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/molly-hagerty-al-gore-a-p_n_630382.html]Link[/url][/b]

 

[MMMariah]

Mixie the right continues to deny that pollution is causing any of the climate issues even though the ice caps are no longer white and as reflective as they should be due to the fallout from the pollution settling on them. that isnt a theory. and you just said it perfectly. you aren't a scientist so you won't try to make a claim, yet you deny that over 98% of the world's climate experts are accurate? How? Why?

the earth will be here long after we make it unlivable for us...we just won't be here. the world population has increased in the BILLIONS since just 1900. it took millions of years for humans to reach 100,000 and then in just 115 years we've multiplied in the billions pouring pollution into the sky and depleting natural resources as if they'll never run out and then one party totally denies we are doing any damage to the earth at all. How does that make any fucking sense?

 

[bobjustbob]

Too much stuff being tossed out here for me to address all at once. Let me chime in on 2.

...that over 98% of the world's climate experts are accurate?...

... the world population has increased in the BILLIONS since just 1900. it took millions of years for humans to reach 100,000 and then in just 115 years we've multiplied in the billions pouring pollution into the sky and depleting natural resources as if they'll never run out...

You say that 98% are accurate. No, 98% agree. Big difference there. I'll spare you the examples of people that agree and found out to be wrong. Too many to cite.

Where are you going with the population thing? Is increased population a bad thing? Think about why our population has grown so fast. People are living longer. We have been given the gift of problem solving. Yea, we create our own problems but we also solve them. Drink upstream and piss downstream. Build shelters rather than finding caves. Rotating crops and let some of the land be fallow. Eradicating diseases. Cut 1 tree plant 2. LED lighting. Recycling. Cockroaches may outlive us but do they have iPhones? Yea, this blaming humans for everything isn't science, it's a fucking religion.

 

[sean miguel]

Too much stuff being tossed out here for me to address all at once. Let me chime in on 2.




You say that 98% are accurate. No, 98% agree. Big difference there. I'll spare you the examples of people that agree and found out to be wrong. Too many to cite.

Where are you going with the population thing? Is increased population a bad thing? Think about why our population has grown so fast. People are living longer. We have been given the gift of problem solving. Yea, we create our own problems but we also solve them. Drink upstream and piss downstream. Rotating crops and let some of the land be fallow. Eradicating diseases. Cut 1 tree plant 2. LED lighting. Recycling. Cockroaches may outlive us but do they have iPhones? Yea, this blaming humans for everything isn't science, it's a fucking religion.

For those concerned with overpopulation - put your money where your mouth is and do your part. :suicide:

 

[Jack Davenport]

I will give Mariah credit for one thing. She reads hella left wing blogs. Just about everything she posts here can be entered into Google and it will lead you to a blog that states what she posts almost verbatim.

 

[MMMariah]

not you too How sad 98% of the worlds experts agree that man is causing climate change. 98% is overwhelming to you Bob? Come on. The 2% that don't are on the payroll of fossil fuel companies. Why the resistance to believe what nearly all of the world's experts believe? Science isn't opinion Bob. Science proves things. It isn't faith that something that can't be proven exists like an invisible man in the sky watching over everyone. Droughts and lack of water and pollution and soot covered ice caps that are melting due to the absorption of the heat from the sun rather then reflecting it are not opinions Bob.

When the world's population literally explodes so quickly natural resources are exhausted killing the natural balance. We are over-fishing. You live up north...we fished ALL of the cod out of Cape Cod. Do you think killing that part of the food chain and natural process isn't important? Of course it is. Don't be one of those dude, please. You're a smart guy.

 

[MMMariah]

I read many things left and right. I have an open mind which you clearly do not. You can't even give an ounce of credit to accomplishments without your agenda being pushed into it. I don't agree with a lot that the left does. It makes me crazy. I want MORE progressive action rather than the talk. We as a country are so behind. We have such a huge growing population of people who will be living in poverty even while working full time while their employers make more profit and get the government to subsidize their payroll with welfare and food stamps so they don't have to dip into those growing profits.

We are not even in the top 10 countries with quality of life. All ten of the top 10 have the most stable economies, the best health care and the fewest citizens living in poverty. And they all give their citizens health care and college education and demand living wages by employers and require them to give 6 weeks of paid vacation every year. Women who have babies get (at least) 6 months of paid leave. They have lots of rich people and everyone can put food on their table.

Call them socialists if you want. they are by all means. But they are also happy and stable with thriving economies. Germany spends more on infrastructure every year than they do military. Their economy is rock solid yet they provide health care and college to everyone. People in Denmark are the happiest in the world. They have a lot of very wealthy people and very few very poor people.

 

[mikexmoran]

I read many things left and right. I have an open mind which you clearly do not. You can't even give an ounce of credit to accomplishments without your agenda being pushed into it. I don't agree with a lot that the left does. It makes me crazy. I want MORE progressive action rather than the talk. We as a country are so behind. We have such a huge growing population of people who will be living in poverty even while working full time while their employers make more profit and get the government to subsidize their payroll with welfare and food stamps so they don't have to dip into those growing profits.

We are not even in the top 10 countries with quality of life. All ten of the top 10 have the most stable economies, the best health care and the fewest citizens living in poverty. And they all give their citizens health care and college education and demand living wages by employers and require them to give 6 weeks of paid vacation every year. Women who have babies get (at least) 6 months of paid leave. They have lots of rich people and everyone can put food on their table.

Call them socialists if you want. they are by all means. But they are also happy and stable with thriving economies. Germany spends more on infrastructure every year than they do military. Their economy is rock solid yet they provide health care and college to everyone. People in Denmark are the happiest in the world. They have a lot of very wealthy people and very few very poor people.

Good post. I wonder how the quality of life list goes if you sort it by size of population and size of economy.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

[...] You say that 98% are accurate. No, 98% agree. Big difference there. I'll spare you the examples of people that agree and found out to be wrong. Too many to cite. [...]

Well, let's have a quick glance at some of the prominent global warming skeptic organizations belonging to those 2% then... (based on the article Global Warming Skeptic Organizations (source))

American Enterprise Institute

With funding from conservative foundations and large corporations, AEI is one of the richest and most influential think tanks in the U.S. Areas of concern include both foreign and domestic policy, including global warming.
AEI has been an avid opponent of the Kyoto protocol, as well as most other environmental regulations. AEI climate science skeptics include James K. Glassman, also of ExxonMobil-funded Tech Central Station. ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond is on the AEI board of trustees.

The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) has routinely tried to undermine the credibility of climate science. For years, AEI played a role in propagating misinformation about a manufactured controversy over emails stolen from climate scientists, with one AEI research fellow even claiming, “There was no consensus about the extent and causes of global warming.”

AEI received $3,615,000 from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 (source)
AEI received more than $1 million in funding from Koch foundations from 2004-2011.

Americans for Prosperity

AFP has its origins in a group founded in 1984 by fossil fuel billionaires Charles and David Koch (source), and the latter Koch still serves on AFP Foundation’s board of directors.

While claiming to be a grassroots organization, AFP has bolstered its list of “activists” by hosting “$1.84 Gas” events, where consumers who receive discounts on gasoline are asked to provide their name and email address on a “petition” form. (source) These events are billed as raising awareness about “failing energy policies” and high gasoline prices, but consumers are not told about AFP’s ties to oil interests, namely Koch Industries.

Koch foundations donated $3,609,281 to AFP Foundation from 2007-2011. (source)

American Legislative Exchange Council

ALEC provides state legisators with model legislation, including a continuing program trying to discredit state level legislation aimed at providing incentives to cut global warming pollution. Funded by conservative foundations and corporate grants, ALEC is a pivotal player between state and federal right-wing think tanks. ALEC was founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich, and is affiliated with the ALEC Foundation. ALEC maintains 15 task forces, including one targeting environmental issues.

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) maintains that “global climate change is inevitable” (source) and since the 1990s has pushed various forms of model legislation aimed at obstructing policies intended to reduce global warming emissions.

ALEC purports to “support the use of sound science to guide policy,” but routinely provides a one-sided platform for climate contrarians. State legislators attending one ALEC meeting were offered a workshop touting a report by a fossil fuel-funded group that declared “like love, carbon dioxide's many splendors are seemingly endless." (source) Another ALEC meeting featured a Fox News contributor who has claimed on the air that carbon dioxide “literally cannot cause global warming.” (source, source)

ALEC received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil from 1998-2012 (source)
ALEC received more than $850,000 from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. (source)

Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University

From its position as the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University, the Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) has published misleading analyses of clean energy and climate change policies in more than three dozen states.

These economic analyses are at times accompanied by a dose of climate contrarianism. For example, BHI Director David Tuerck has claimed that “the very question of whether the climate is warming is in doubt…” (source) Claims such as “wind power actually increases pollution” can be found in many of BHI’s reports.

BHI has publicly acknowledged its Koch funding, which likely includes at least some of the approximately $725,000 the Charles G. Koch foundation contributed to Suffolk University from 2008-2011. (source)

Cato Institute

Cato acknowledges that “Global warming is indeed real…” But when it comes to the causes of global warming, Cato has sent mixed messages over the years. Cato's website, for instance, reports that “… human activity has been a contributor [to global warming] since 1975.” (source)[23] Yet, on the same topic of whether human activity is responsible for global warming, Cato’s vice president has written: “We don’t know.” (source)

Patrick Michaels, Director of Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, has referred to the latest Draft National Climate Assessment Report as “the stuff of fantasy.” (source) The most recent edition of Cato’s “Handbook for Policymakers” advises that Congress should “pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.” (source)

Charles Koch co-founded Cato in 1977. Both Charles and David Koch were among the four “shareholders” who “owned” Cato until 2011 (source), and the latter Koch remains a member of Cato’s Board of Directors. (source) Koch foundations contributed more than $5 million to Cato from 1997-2011. (source)

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has at times acknowledged that “Global warming is a reality.” (source) But CEI has also routinely disputed that global warming is a problem, contending that “There is no ‘scientific consensus’ that global warming will cause damaging climate change.” (source)

These kinds of claims are nothing new for CEI. Back in 1991, CEI was claiming that “The greatest challenge we face is not warming, but cooling.” (source) More recently, CEI produced an ad calling for higher levels of carbon dioxide. One CEI scholar even publicly compared a prominent climate scientist to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky. (source)

CEI received around $2 million in funding from ExxonMobil from 1995-2005 (source), though ExxonMobil made a public break with CEI in 2007 after coming under scrutiny from UCS and other groups for its funding of climate contrarian organizations.
CEI has also received funding from Koch foundations, dating back to the 1980s. (source)

Heartland Institute

Founded in the early 1984, Heartland Institute claims to apply "cutting-edge research to state and local public policy issues." Additionally, Heartland bills itself as "the marketing arm of the free-market movement." In February of 2012, internal strategy and funding documents detailing the Heartland Institutes campaign of global warming denial were released to DeSmogBlog. The documents included strategies for raising funds from Koch brothers foundations, as well as a plan to create school curriculums that cast doubt on global warming science. Documents and analysis are available at desmogblog.com.

In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question serious cancer risks to secondhand smoke, and to lobby against government public-health reforms. Starting in 2008, the Institute has organized conferences to discuss and criticize the scientific opinion of global warming.

In addition to research, Heartland features an Internet application called "Policybot" which serves as a clearinghouse for research from other conservative think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the libertarian Cato Institute.

While claiming to stand up for “sound science,” the Heartland Institute has routinely spread misinformation about climate science, including deliberate attacks on climate scientists. (source)

Popular outcry forced the Heartland Institute to pull down a controversial billboard that compared supporters of global warming facts to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski (source), bringing an early end to a planned campaign first announced in an essay by Heartland President Joseph Bast, which claimed “… the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” (source)

Heartland even once marked Earth Day by mailing out 100,000 free copies of a book claiming that “climate science has been corrupted” (source) – despite acknowledging that “…all major scientific organizations of the world have taken the official position that humankind is causing global warming.”

Heartland received more than $675,000 from ExxonMobil from 1997-2006 (source).
Heartland also raked in millions from the Koch-funded organization Donors Trust through 2011. (source, source)

Heritage Foundation

While maintaining that “Science should be used as one tool to guide climate policy,” the Heritage Foundation often uses rhetoric such as “far from settled” to sow doubt about climate science. One Heritage report even claimed that “The only consensus over the threat of climate change that seems to exist these days is that there is no consensus.” (source)

Vocal climate contrarians, meanwhile, are described as “the world’s best scientists when it comes to the climate change study” in the words of one Heritage policy analyst. (source)

Heritage received more than $4.5 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. (source)
ExxonMobil contributed $780,000 to the Heritage Foundation from 2001-2012. ExxonMobil continues to provide annual contributions to the Heritage Foundation, despite making a public pledge in 2007 to stop funding climate contrarian groups. (source, source)

Institute for Energy Research

The term “alarmism” is defined by Mirriam-Webster as “the often unwarranted exciting of fears or warning of danger.” So when Robert Bradley, CEO and founder of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), and others at his organization routinely evoke the term “climate alarmism” they do so to sow doubt about the urgency of global warming.

IER claims that public policy “should be based on objective science, not emotion or improbable scenarios …” But IER also claims that the sense of urgency for climate action is due not to the science that shows the real and growing conequences of global warming. Rather, IER suggests that researchers “exacerbate the sense [that] policies are urgently needed” for monetary gain, noting that “issues that are perceived to be an imminent crisis can mean more funding.” (source)

Institute for Energy Research has received $307,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (source)
Institute for Energy Research has received fundings from the Koch brothers (source).

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

The Manhattan Institute has acknowledged that the “scientific consensus is that the planet is warming,” while at the same time maintaining that “… accounts of climate change convey a sense of certitude that is probably unjustified.” (source)

“The science is not settled, not by a long shot,” Robert Bryce, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow has written in the Wall Street Journal (source). At other times Bryce has expressed indifference to the science on climate change. “I don’t know who’s right. And I really don’t care,” he wrote in one book. (source)

The Manhattan Institute has received $635,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998 (source), with annual contributions continuing as of 2012, and nearly $2 million from Koch foundations from 1997-2011. (source)

I think I can see a pattern here...

98% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies... seems legit

thank you Bob for saving me. I almost felt like a muppet of the environmentalists

 

[MMMariah]

yes nearly all of those scientists who disagree are on the payroll of the interests that benefit fossil fuel producers. But you have Rush and Hannity and the rest of the blabbering rubes who are paid to repeat it to the mouth breathing masses.

I'm sorry but when 98% of the world's experts all agree we are playing a huge role in it, I have to listen. The birth control pill is only 98% effective but I'll bet those skeptics think that's plenty good for them.

 

[MMMariah]

Good post. I wonder how the quality of life list goes if you sort it by size of population and size of economy.

I think that with 300 million people we could very easily have a thriving, healthy, happy population but one side would never allow it. They want there to be a class above all others without any chance of those "others" from having a voice in matters. Its no different than Jesse Jackson being the mouthpiece of the african american community continuously reminding them of how oppressed they are and how unfair the world is to them. If they didn't feel that way he would be out of a very lucrative job. I'm all for being rewarded for success and don't believe that everyone should have the same amount of wealth and all that bullshit. However I do feel that if you have $20 million dollars you should certainly be paying a larger % of your income than the guy who cuts your grass. I also think that if you are fortunate then its in your best interest to help make the world around you better. I'm not saying anything more than the way this country was run up until the Nixon era. The wealthiest paid a lot more and the less-fortunate were looked after. No one bought them a house, but making sure people are educated, fed and have a roof over their heads and medicine when they need it makes for a better more productive society.


We have a serious problem in this country that is getting worse every election. We have special interests buying legislation, buying elections and steering the direction of the laws. That isn't how the constitution was written and the very reason that it was written the way it was. To protect our government from corruption, but here we are, with the Koch brothers declaring they will put $900 MILLION into the 2016 election. Now why would anyone do that unless it was to own that party's allegiance indefinitely?

My son graduates high school this year and is going to college on a basketball scholarship. I am seriously considering moving to France after he leaves for school this fall. The southern French countryside is about as beautiful as it gets. I'd live in Denmark but it's too fucking cold there but I LOVE Copenhagen. There isn't a more beautiful city that I know of.

 

[Johan]

yes nearly all of those scientists who disagree are on the payroll of the interests that benefit fossil fuel producers. But you have Rush and Hannity and the rest of the blabbering rubes who are paid to repeat it to the mouth breathing masses.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...nge-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

 

[bobjustbob]

Opinions are not facts regardless of where they come from. Lots of evidence given that industries and people are involved in shaping opinions for their own self interest. But are scientist immune to this sort of thing?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

Because I'm not buying into the 98% opinion doesn't say I don't have an open mind. Do scientists know everything? Of course not and no one should take all of their opinions as if they were facts. I respect scientists because their contributions make our world a better place to live. With that they are also people with wood furniture from cut trees and eat Big Macs.

About Denmark and Germany quality of life? All of those free things they offer people come at a price and that is called taxes. Add up the personal income tax, corporate tax, VAT of 25%. What you have left from what you work for will cut dearly into your present lifestyle. Go compare cost of living and taxes to USA. Groceries are cheaper. Housing? Rent may be 20% cheaper but to buy is double priced. Everything else costs way more (transportation, clothing, leisure activities, restaurants). I'd rather manage my own money than hand it over to the government to decide how I spend it.

 

[GodsEmbryo]

Opinions are not facts regardless of where they come from. Lots of evidence given that industries and people are involved in shaping opinions for their own self interest. But are scientist immune to this sort of thing?

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

You contradict yourself Bob. You ask the question if scientist are immune to shaping opinions, and use this as an argument that this is indeed happening. Yet you have no problem in taking a stand against the 98% agreement of scientists, agreeing with the 2%. Wouldn't it be, according to your own argument, be applicable to these 2% as well? So why take the deniers position, even if they do have shaped opinions, but not those of the 98%? That doesn't sound like an open mind to me.

Because I'm not buying into the 98% opinion doesn't say I don't have an open mind. Do scientists know everything? Of course not and no one should take all of their opinions as if they were facts. I respect scientists because their contributions make our world a better place to live. With that they are also people with wood furniture from cut trees and eat Big Macs. [...]

Why do you call them opinions and not facts? What is your definition of facts? Can you give an example of what a scientific article should have before you consider it fact and not opinion?

 

[bobjustbob]

I guess my question came out wrong. I wanted to bring to light that there is a motivation of scientists as to what they study and the publishing of results. There is competition amongst the scientific community to get published. We don't see all of the research because if it is not popular, it doesn't get published or the findings are thrown away. I am not a scientist but I understand how the game is played. I've written tons of shit that didn't get ink. Amongst that pile are stories and interviews that got turned down but months and years later published written by other writers. Same questions and answers. Same fact digging. It just so happened that the subject and person wasn't popular when I wrote them. Ain't that a kick in the ass.

A fact can be reproduced every time under the same conditions. That answers all 3 questions.

And I'm not taking a denier's position. You are believing this to a 98-2% with no room for inconclusive. Why should my inconclusive be lumped into the 2%?

 

[mikexmoran]

I guess my question came out wrong. I wanted to bring to light that there is a motivation of scientists as to what they study and the publishing of results. There is competition amongst the scientific community to get published. We don't see all of the research because if it is not popular, it doesn't get published or the findings are thrown away. I am not a scientist but I understand how the game is played. I've written tons of shit that didn't get ink. Amongst that pile are stories and interviews that got turned down but months and years later published written by other writers. Same questions and answers. Same fact digging. It just so happened that the subject and person wasn't popular when I wrote them. Ain't that a kick in the ass.

A fact can be reproduced every time under the same conditions. That answers all 3 questions.

And I'm not taking a denier's position. You are believing this to a 98-2% with no room for inconclusive. Why should my inconclusive be lumped into the 2%?

Not being an expert in this area, I've kind of accepted it. I accepted analysis of some of the CO2 levels that they have taken from the ice caps and that kind of discussion. However, I have thought about what you're getting at too, Bob. Even if 100% of the scientists are in agreement, but there isn't refutable evidence, then is it really a fact? I've had Ph D.'s in Physics and Biology explain to me the scientific definition of a fact and it still sounds like what a theory would be in Economics.

I'm not weighing in on either side, but just saying that I see the validity in Bob's comments.

 

[sean miguel]

Please bear with me, I'm just a simpleton on a porn board.

There were ice ages in earth's history right? So to come out of an ice age would mean a dramatic warming of the earth's surface temperature correct? And there were multiple ice ages right? So cooling and warming have been cyclical throughout earth's history correct? So in the last hundred or so years since official records have been kept how do we know that the current warming trend data (when it's not being fudged) is not part of a cycle that goes back billions of years? Given such a miniscule sample size in time how can anyone be certain that this trend is somehow abnormal and even more certain that it's human-caused?

Another thing that raises a red flag with me (being a simpleton, mind you) is the way those who express any skepticism are treated as heretics, as if they were offending someone's religious beliefs. Ace posted a graphic a while back and one of the points was that science welcomes criticism, it doesn't shout it down or attempt to suppress it. You have people in the global warming crowd (Robert Kennedy Jr.) who have called for deniers to be arrested. If human-caused climate change is a rock solid fact why isn't it just universally accepted the same as there are 24 hrs (give or take a few seconds) in a day? Or that water freezes at 32 f or boils at 212 f? Why aren't deniers immediately and outright discredited?

And this 98% to 2% thing. Assuming those numbers are true (and haven't been fudged) what does that actually prove? What percentage of scientists in Galileo's day believed the sun revolved around the earth? Or his predecessor Copernicus?

 

[sean miguel]

If human-caused climate change is a rock solid fact why isn't it just universally accepted the same as there are 24 hrs (give or take a few seconds) in a day? Or that water freezes at 32 f or boils at 212 f? Why aren't deniers immediately and outright discredited?

And this 98% to 2% thing. Assuming those numbers are true (and haven't been fudged) what does that actually prove? What percentage of scientists in Galileo's day believed the sun revolved around the earth? Or his predecessor Copernicus?

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. 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. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. 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.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

"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. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

-Michael Crichton


In bold, the point I was making. But he said it better than I ever could.