http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology Photosynthesising in a CO2-enriched world Sun, 15 Apr 2012 12:19:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-94266 Steve Sat, 10 Dec 2011 23:04:49 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/#comment-94266 Tim has got it right. The flowcharts are a complete travesty of Crichton's argument. If you read his whole article, instead of taking quotes out of context, it is clear that he has no problem with consensus per se. What infuriates him, and should infuriate anyone with an interest in true science, is the almost universal condemnation of "climate skeptics" on the basis that the consensus of scientists is against them. The science is in, they keep saying, but where (apart from the specialist meteorological journals, which most of us could not understand) is it? I have just read scientificamerican.com's latest "In Depth" report on "The Future of Climate Change", which had links to 35 or so articles; as far as I could see, only ONE article dealt with scientific evidence at all - and that one, ironically, was entitled "How Sunlight Controls Climate". Tim has got it right. The flowcharts are a complete travesty of Crichton’s argument. If you read his whole article, instead of taking quotes out of context, it is clear that he has no problem with consensus per se. What infuriates him, and should infuriate anyone with an interest in true science, is the almost universal condemnation of “climate skeptics” on the basis that the consensus of scientists is against them. The science is in, they keep saying, but where (apart from the specialist meteorological journals, which most of us could not understand) is it?
I have just read scientificamerican.com’s latest “In Depth” report on “The Future of Climate Change”, which had links to 35 or so articles; as far as I could see, only ONE article dealt with scientific evidence at all – and that one, ironically, was entitled “How Sunlight Controls Climate”.

]]> http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-65747 Tim Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:50:28 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/#comment-65747 What Crichton was clearly implying is that just because a whole bunch of scientists agree on something, it doesn't make it right or science (ie the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc). Science is science whether or not the majority agrees with the results. Even in your explanation from Crichton on how you formulated your charts, it shows you didn't read what he said. He didn't say that ONLY one person can be right in order for it to be science. His point was that it only REQUIRES one. Here's an example: If a consensus of scientists said 2+2=5, it doesn't make them right just because the majority agrees. All it takes to put consensus science as the sham that it is is for one scientist to prove that 2+2=4. So if that one person has "results that are verifiable by reference to the real world" (as in provable or "reproducible" and not just theoretical like global warming), it doesn't matter how many people agree otherwise if they're wrong, it only matters what that one person can prove. No one has (or will) prove that anthropological global warming is real. That is why consensus science is not real science. So despite Al Gore claiming that the "consensus science" is in, it only needs one person to scientifically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change is natural to shatter the whole AGW theory and its consensus. What Crichton was clearly implying is that just because a whole bunch of scientists agree on something, it doesn’t make it right or science (ie the world is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, etc). Science is science whether or not the majority agrees with the results. Even in your explanation from Crichton on how you formulated your charts, it shows you didn’t read what he said. He didn’t say that ONLY one person can be right in order for it to be science. His point was that it only REQUIRES one.
Here’s an example: If a consensus of scientists said 2+2=5, it doesn’t make them right just because the majority agrees. All it takes to put consensus science as the sham that it is is for one scientist to prove that 2+2=4. So if that one person has “results that are verifiable by reference to the real world” (as in provable or “reproducible” and not just theoretical like global warming), it doesn’t matter how many people agree otherwise if they’re wrong, it only matters what that one person can prove. No one has (or will) prove that anthropological global warming is real. That is why consensus science is not real science. So despite Al Gore claiming that the “consensus science” is in, it only needs one person to scientifically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that climate change is natural to shatter the whole AGW theory and its consensus.

]]> http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-2041 CAM Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:28:50 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/#comment-2041 Oh, I think the credit goes to Crichton. He's the comedy genius here. Oh, I think the credit goes to Crichton. He’s the comedy genius here.

]]> http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-2018 Milan Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:52:23 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/#comment-2018 Your flowcharts are very amusing. Your flowcharts are very amusing.

]]> http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/comment-page-1/#comment-1681 Kate Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:51:16 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/is-it-science-or-consensus-the-michael-crichton-sciencenot-science-methodology/#comment-1681 Nicely done, Cam, and actually makes a lot of sense if you read his work! Nicely done, Cam, and actually makes a lot of sense if you read his work!

]]>