William Tyndale (c. 1494 – c. 1536) was a biblical scholar and linguist who in 1526 translated and published the New Testament into English. Immediately trouble began for him. Main reason? Tyndale rejected the then 99.9% consensus opinion that only approved clergy could interpret Scripture. His translation allowed lay people to independently read, analyze and interpret the Holy Scriptures.

But anyone who was found with an English translation of the Bible faced the death penalty. Tyndall’s translation was seen as a real threat to the consensus and leadership of the church elite. Of course, he took advantage of the new “means of mass communication”—I mean, of course, the printing press—to disseminate his translation.

Tyndall was later arrested, strangled, and his body burned at the stake.

Of course, we are very grateful that after 500 years of progress, eminent scientists were accused of being heretics (objectors) is no longer suffocating. Or burned. At least for now.

This introduction represents another martyr of the consensus present at certain times in human societies.[1] The existence of these objectors it illustrates the risks, sometimes deadly, of those people who prefer to use their own ability to gather relevant information and make their own decisions rather than absorb the answers or opinions of nameless, faceless experts. Having a functional mind means, among other things, having the confidence to gather, synthesize, and draw conclusions from information you can access on your own. For a person with a working mind, the fact that most people – even the vast majority of intelligent and informed people – believe something should not affect their opinion at all. It is one of the most valuable traits we possess as humans.

why Because there are numerous examples of situations where people for a long time overwhelmingly – perhaps even unanimously – believed something to be true or valid, only to be found wrong when faced with the harsh truth of reality. Without delving too far into the past (eg geocentrism, the existence of cyclical glaciations, continental drift, etc.), I’m simply asking: What happened to the fracking apocalypse that will poison the villagers’ well water, cause devastating earthquakes, emit radiation that kills people and animals, etc. according to the consensus formulated by scientists stimulated fake documentary, Gasland? nothing Although I think pits filled with ashes should have been enough for the false prophets to bury their heads in to wash away their shame (if I even know what that is).

The fact that there was once a consensus did not change the outcome of what the universe ultimately produced. This is why I agree with Margaret Thatcher’s definition of “consensus”:

Consensus:

The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and politics in search of something that no one believes in, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding issues that need to be resolved simply because agreement on the way forward cannot be reached. What great cause was fought for and won under the banner of “I agree with the consensus”?

What is correct in science is determined not by consensus, but by experiment and observation. Historically, scientific consensuses have often turned out to be wrong (examples abound). The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke the consensus. The frequent assertion that there is a consensus on the idea that we are facing imminent catastrophe due to climate change is not how scientific credibility is determined. The quote from Michael Crichton’s lecture “Aliens are causing global warming” is instructive even two decades after its presentation, and it also includes a large list of objectors scientific consensus:

Let’s figure it out: scientific activity has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is a matter of politics. Science, on the other hand, only needs one researcher who happens to be right, which means he has results that can be tested by reference to the real world. Consensus doesn’t matter in science. What matters is the reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke the consensus. There is no consensus in science. If it’s a consensus, it’s not science. If it’s science, it’s not consensus. point. [s.m.]

Or, to use the inspired phrase of physicist Richard Feynman, I’d rather have unanswered questions than definite answers.

In pursuit of climate consensus

Seeking and building consensus on climate is a central element of the mission, procedures and knowledge sharing between the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Efforts to build consensus and popularization were based on the belief that such an attitude towards climate change is a necessary condition for effective climate change policymaking. Scientists who “come to a consensus” and “speak with one voice” are an integral part of the projection of the epistemic authority of science. This is especially true of the UN IPCC, where its authority is believed to be based on the communication of scientific consensus.[2] And here the problems began.

None of the functions of consensus in science – it is a statement about the truth, it provides the birth of a new epistemic community, it provides a pragmatic way to bring the authority of knowledge into the public circulation when important political decisions are brewing – has not remained undisputed. . There has long been a current in philosophy that questions the nature of consensus in science.

For example, Rescher (1993) argues against the desirability of consensus in science, arguing for the need to replace it with the institution of pragmatic agreements in which the community will accept cognitive pluralism as an inevitable institution.[3]

Related to the IPCC’s theoretical and practical understanding of scientific consensus, Miller (2013) asks under what conditions epistemic consensus can be considered a “benchmark” of knowledge. His answer suggests three conditions that must be met: social calibration, evidential consistency of evidence, and social diversity. Failure to meet these conditions undermines the epistemic community’s claim to legitimate consensus.[4]

In the same vein, Stirling (2010) argues that democratic decision-making is better served by epistemic pluralism than by seeking a consensus of knowledge. The author claims, among other things, that pluralistic and conditional advice can help … resolve polar fault lines in current science-in-policy debates.[5]

Due to his volatile nature and sharp criticism, he even challenged the legitimacy of the scientific consensus: We don’t really know what scientific consensus is.[6]

Since the 1990s, the IPCC has fatally chosen to formulate its periodic reports based on the approach we use consensus for politicianswhich sees uncertainties and disagreements as problematic and tries to settle them to reach consensus without objectors. This strategy actually recognizes that existing knowledge is not conclusive and then uses consensus as an indicator of truth. A Consensus for Policymakers reflects a particular perspective on how policy addresses scientific uncertainties (Judith Curry, 2023, personal communication).

Climate consensus in brief: what we know, what we don’t know, what we can’t know

Even those who are not climate experts have heard since Barack Obama that 97% of climate experts believe in anthropogenic global warming. In fact, they and the rest of the scientific world agree that:

• The surface temperature of land and oceans rose from 188o
• Humanity adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, mainly through the burning of fossil fuels and the production of cement
• Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases cause the planet to heat up

But there is also disagreement about the most important aspects (Judith Curry, 2023, personal communication):

• How much of the recent warming is caused by humans
• How much will the planet warm in the 21st century
• If the current warming is dangerous, catastrophic, apocalyptic, the fifth extinction of life on earth, etc.
• How should we respond to this warming to improve human well-being

The answers to the first two points lie in the realm of climate modeling (on which I have published many articles and book chapters) and expert judgment to estimate “how much” anthropogenic warming has been and will be in the future. The third point, about the nature of “dangerous”, “catastrophic”, etc., is a matter of social values, about which science has little to say. The last point, which links the improvement of human well-being with the elimination or drastic reduction of CO emissions₂ it is a question of economics and technology, to which must be added the relative importance of natural climate variability versus anthropogenic global warming during the 21st century.

The issue of natural climate variability is a major bone of contention among climatologists. Because historical data is few and insufficient, especially regarding the oceans. There is also considerable disagreement about the epistemic value of different classes of evidence, such as global climate modeling or paleoclimate reconstructions.[7] The way in which (paleo)climate data are evaluated and correlated is often the cause of disagreement. In addition, discrepancies arise because some climate processes (such as cloud activity and influence) are poorly known or even unknown.

The patriarch of American geologists, Thomas Chamberlin, in his 1897 essay lamented the human instinct to focus on a favorite theory when explaining scientific observations. As a remedy, Chamberlin advocated research based on the investigation of multiple hypotheses: an adequate explanation often involves the coordination of multiple causes. But current climatology has become obsessed with CO2 emissions, which are considered the magic button for climate change, and when we turn them to zero, miracles will happen to us. Read the whole article and comment on Contributors.ro