PrintJanuary 7, 2007
Scientific "Consensus": Gateway to Tyranny
The next time someone asks, "Do you believe in Global Warming?" Inquire why they are asking a religious question, because that is what they are asking. Belief is for religion not science.
The question should be: "What do you think about Global Warming" or "Do you think Global Warming is real (i.e. a fact)?"
Science is about facts, and the fact of the matter is, with regard to Global Warming, there are, and have been, two sides, and two difference trains of thought on the whole Theory of Global Warming. At least two sides are necessary for science to advance. Lord Monckton recently rebuked Al Gore for his attempt to silence dissent:
"Sceptics and those who have the courage to support them are actually helpful in getting the science right. They do not, as you improperly suggest, 'obfuscate' the issue: they assist in clarifying it by challenging weaknesses in the 'consensus' argument and they compel necessary corrections ... .
No, I am not going to list all the points of contention between the two camps. We're all adults here, and those who are looking for the facts can find them. My point is there are two camps. But by the MSM, ‘environmental' groups, and political aspirants/hacks like Al Gore, one would swear that there was no question about the theory, about the facts.
The inconvenient truth is if both sides had equal time the issue of Global Warming would not be considered a ‘done deal.'
Okay, what happened here? What happened to science? Well, politics hijacked science. And remember politics always works hand in hand with ‘social concerns' which can be anything from social reconstruction to environmental Marxism. But science is about facts--politics is not.
How were the facts circumvented? Well, the word being bantered about is ‘consensus.' That's right. We have a consensus--scientific consensus. What we have is a group of agenda driven scientists in cahoots with the MSM and political guerillas, because science--real fact driven science is propelled by experiments which can be repeated, again and again.
When a theory is espoused as if it was a law and be promoted by a bunch of people who only ‘agree' something is fact, but have no factual authority--well--I see a danger here, and this danger does have historical roots.
Walk with me down the path of time and history and I will frighten you with a word--a single--horrifying--example of scientific consensus: Eugenics.
A bunch of scientists and medical-types in American and in nations around the world decided by scientific consensus that Black people were inferior because their heads were smaller and their lips stuck out! Jews! Jews were considered by German scientists--yes, scientists--to be rats walking on two legs. Sterilized them! That was the noble plan put together by a noble scientific consensus. But hell, why sterilize Jews, let's just build a camp!
Beware! Every thought, idea, belief, and religious belief is constantly being attributed to human biology--Genetics. Now, when will the Cult of Scientific Consensus decide to come for thee? Think about that and be afraid.
William D. Zeranski is the proprietor of Theory = Dogma
