Climate change (what used to be called Global Warming) provides a test case on whether a scientific consensus is reliable or authoritative.
A minority of scientists, most being strict Darwinians, rule a majority of their fellow human beings who believe in creation. A similar situation exists in “climate change” theory, where the scientific elite are frustrated that ordinary citizens and governments balk at accepting their opinions. Though off topic for Creation-Evolution Headlines, some comparisons may be instructive on how to evaluate the consensus about Darwinism.
The more inclusive “climate change” term evolved by punctuated equilibrium (or, as some might have it, by intelligent design) after years of warnings by scientists about “global warming.” But global warming carries no political baggage unless it is human caused – the source of most of the conflict about “anthropogenic global warming” and what should be done about it.
The scientific consensus is still adamant that humans are guilty of setting our planet on a dangerous course via industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. In recent years, their force of presumptive authority led to global summits and promises by governments to take draconian measures as penance. Some still do. The wind seems to have gone out of the scientific sails recently, though. Reasons include lingering damage from embarrassing exposures of fraud and flawed statistics, inconsistent claims, growing doubt about the validity of the data, governments that are figuring that cutting their own emissions puts them at an economic disadvantage, and a public reluctant to accept the “sky is falling” message.
“Climate change” has become something of a catch-phrase that stands for too much and thereby means too little. For instance, just when the layman has learned to watch his carbon footprint, New Scientist tells him to watch out for his nitrogen footprint, water footprint and phosphorus footprint. How can John Q. Public avoid stepping all over himself?….
Continue Reading on crev.info