Science is About Evidence, Not Consensus

July 8, 2013

08 July (GWPF.ORG) Science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false.

compiled by Dr. Benny Peiser

Science, Richard Feyman once said, is “the belief in the ignorance of experts.” So, yes, it is the evidence that persuades me whether a theory is right or wrong, and no, I could not care less what the “consensus” says. –Matt Ridley, The Wall Street Journal, 6 July 2013

source: Cartoons by Josh

This week’s World Meterological Organisation’s report “The Global Climate 2001-2010: A Decade Of Climate Extremes,” attracted little publicity. This is probably a good thing as it is one of the most muddled and inaccurate reports I have ever read from an international organization. It is about ‘climate extremes’ in the last decade which it claims are unprecedented. The WMO thinks ten years are enough to detect climatological weather effects with certainty. It seems to fit a recurrent pattern amongst some climate analysts that ten years is enough to see what you want to see, but not long enough to see what you don’t. –David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 5 July 2013

Britain was this weekend basking in sunshine — just three weeks after the country was warned to prepare for a decade of soggy summers. Britons could be forgiven for some scepticism, given predictions by the Met Office last month that wet summers might last for a decade or more. The Met Office has struggled with long-term weather predictions — notoriously predicting a “barbecue summer” in 2009 before heavy and prolonged rainfall. Tourism managers called for the Met Office to concentrate on accurate, short-term forecasts. Mark Smith, director of tourism at Bournemouth council, said: “People are totally confused. One minute they are told global warming is going to result in hotter summers and the next minute they are told it is going to be soggy. We want accurate, short-term forecasts.” –Jon Ungoed-Thomas, The Sunday Times, 7 July 2013

A pillar of global-warming alarm has come under criticism from a country with more than most at stake. The Netherlands called for reform of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the creature of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization considered by many to offer the final word on climate science. With its credibility and authority under question, the IPCC now hears from the Dutch government that it should adjust its focus and organization to policy and societal needs. –Bob Tippee, Oil and Gas Journal, 5 July 2013

It’s particularly trendy among politicians and members of the media to be worried about climate change. When President Obama recently spoke before a crowd in Berlin, he said that climate change “is the global threat of our time.” But that’s not true. Just a cursory glance around the world reveals that, given the enormous problems facing our planet, it would be surprising if climate change cracked a list of the top 10 immediate concerns. What the average person in the Westernized world considers to be a big problem is rarely aligned with reality. Instead, our concerns are more of a reflection of what our culture and the media say our concerns should be. –Alex Berezow, RealClearScience, 8 July 2013

One of the curiosities of this Government in this area is that we have not one energy policy, but two. This Bill represents one of them. Calling it an energy Bill is somewhat misleading; it should have been called a de-carbonisation Bill, or maybe an anti-energy Bill. Nevertheless, ostensibly it is an energy Bill. That policy is out of date, if it ever was in date. The only way in which you can make sense of these two conflicting energy policies is if you think that the purpose of developing our resources of indigenous shale gas — we cannot use it here because of this Bill — is for it to be exported to our competitors so that they can have the benefit of the cheap energy that we are forgoing. That is the only way in which you can reconcile the two policies. Of course, it is complete rubbish, complete nonsense. It is the economics and the politics of the mad house. –Nigel Lawson, House of Lords, 2 July 2013