14 December 2012

An Appeal to Authority

Here’s what passes for science among the left:

This is not science, this is an appeal to authority.*  It doesn’t matter how many peer-reviewed articles there are making any assertion about any subject.  What matters is what reality actually is.  Given that a good number of global warming research articles relied on fraudulent data, it is completely illogical to argue that somehow the faith that a finite number of scientists placed in that data about point in the past somehow magically proves that global warming is occurring.

Now, obviously it is entirely possible that global warming is occurring, and that it is man-made.  However, saying that “thousands of journal articles written by fallible humans based on quite possibly fraudulent data overwhelmingly points to the existence of global warming” is not conclusive proof of anything other than scientific consensus.  Furthermore, as anyone with any passing familiar of the history of scientific consensus knows, there were points in time when scientific consensus defended a geo-centric model of the universe and phlogiston theory, both of which are now widely rejected among the scientific community.

Not only that, there was a point in the not-too-recent past when scientific consensus was that that the earth was facing a very credible threat of global cooling.  What we can conclude from this is that scientists cannot even be depended on to correctly identify a global temperature trend an make projections that are correct just a few mere decades into the future.  Scientific consensus would be more believable if it weren’t constantly changing.

Thus, what we can reasonably conclude from the above chart is that this will go down the scientific community’s proverbial memory hole at some point in the future, and will be probably be mocked by our grandchildren, being used as proof that people living around the turn of the 21st century were complete ignoramuses about how the world really worked.

* And highly misleading to boot, as it doesn’t tell you the number of articles that are inconclusive.


  1. They also don't mention how many climate articles didn't discuss global warming, but were talking about other issues entirely.