CONSENSUS

Nicolaus Copernicus :

SCIENCE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT CONSENSUS

When Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric solar system (earth revolves around the sun) in 300 BC the scientific consensus was that the solar system was geocentric, the earth was still and everything else revolved around it... come on, isn't it obvious?

The scientific consensus would remain geocentric for another 1900 years.

It would be another 200 years before the "consensus" consented, and agreed that the solar system wasn't the center of the universe.

It would be another 120 years before consensus again shifted with the taciturn realization that we were just part of an insignificant galaxy among billions of other insignificant galaxies.

Where am I going with this?

I recently read an article by Tim Donovan, the political editor for BBC London titled "Thanks for Killing the Planet, Boomers".

From what I've been able to ascertain, at least according to the BBC "After training in newspapers, he started out as a political reporter on 'Around Westminster', before becoming a general reporter and specialist correspondent for BBC in the South East."

So a "reporter" with apparently no scientific training whatsoever (I may be wrong), with Consensus as his battle cry makes the following pronouncements:

The world as we know it is ending, and no one can reasonably hope to avoid the constellation of catastrophic, ecological and social disasters that are all but certain to manifest, exacerbating one another’s horrific, deadly consequences.

By the middle of the century, the comfortable, wealthy, relatively-peaceful world as we know it simply won’t exist. The consequences of worldwide coastal devastation and the subsequent infrastructure damage from super-storms and storm surges combined with the “death” of the oceans – with ominous consequences beyond our current predictive capabilities — will ravage the world, our politics and our peace, preventing even the most insulated peoples and cultures from continuing their fat and happy early-21st-century lifestyles. And unlike every other time such apocalyptic predictions have been levied, these are based on extraordinarily well-researched, peer-reviewed studies and reports from hundreds of the world’s most well-respected scientists in their field.

For  1900 years a Geocentric Universe was based on extraordinarily well-researched, peer-reviewed studies and reports from hundreds of the world’s most well-respected scientists in their field.

ALARMIST MUCH?

I am not a "Climate Change Denier", nor am I a "Climate Change Advocate".  With a strong background in the sciences and engineering, I am a Climate Change Agnostic. Why? Because the predicted results of the modelling do not represent the observed facts.  In other words, the models are not an accurate.  The BBC proclaimed ice-free Arctic in 2013 now has 29% more ice than 2012.  The Antarctic ice sheet is now at a 35 year high.

Do I oppose reducing CO2 emissions? No, not if done within realistic fiscal, economic, industrial, and agricultural constraints.  Do I think something observable is going on with the climate? Yes.  Do I believe we have enough evidence to declare it anthropogenic? No. Why? Because...

SCIENCE DOESN'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT CONSENSUS