One of the most common “arguments” in favor of the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGZ) is the general consensus (97%) of experts on the cause of warming. I admit that I underestimated the volume of this quasiargument, so now I will try to correct it.
To me, the term refers to a group of masters who are deciding whether a tree will fall on the house when it is cut down, or how many cubes of planks it takes to shalung. So somehow these climate masters are deciding what the temperature will be and what it will mean for the climate and the weather in a hundred years. When they agree, as they say “very likely”, this is an eternal truth, although each model has its own policies. On the other hand, the “scientific consensus” is a typical oxymoron, or something expertly proven or politically agreed. One has nothing to do with the other. How this consensus and analysis data came about will be discussed in one of the following posts. For impatient sources 1 and 2, for others it is just a hint of a real crime.
Before the last supporter of AGZ theory escapes from the blog – two historical examples.
Is the Earth flat or round? First, there was a scientific consensus in many early civilizations that it was flat because no evidence to the contrary was observed. I do not know what led Parmenides and Pythagoras 2,500 years ago to the idea that it was round, but this theory quickly gained a lot of supporters, including Aristotle. Three hundred years later, Eratosthenes also calculated the Earth’s circumference with a thoughtful experiment. Basically, the scientific consensus has changed and the Earth has become round. Once an idea breaks the balloon of settled opinion, one suddenly finds suitable evidence that has had to wait for other times.
drawing: Steve Hunter, text above: Another great moment for scientific consensus, in the bubble: We have reached consensus !! Earth is definitely RIGHT !!
We have decided which Earth is in shape, but the question remains, is the Sun revolving around it, or is it the other way around? First of all, there is no dilemma. Every morning we witness that we are standing still, and the sun is going up in the sky. Most ancient Greek philosophers and scholars of 2,300 years ago thought so. And so it remained until the 17th century. That being said, the scientific consensus that the sun revolves around Earth has existed for 2,000 years. Some were convinced that this was because Ptolemy’s system was fairly well worked out. Some agreed because they did not want to pass as Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake in Rome’s Flower Square), and some (the church) because it suited the church dogma that is not being questioned. Do you know how long Galileo waited for the church to admit she was wrong? Three hundred years, by the publication of Pope John Paul II in 1992.
However, this is nothing compared to Aristarchus who correctly assumed that the Earth revolves around the sun. He waited almost 2,000 years until it turned out he was right. And here, a little Copernicus, a little Galileo, and then Kepler, and so we come to a new scientific consensus that the Earth is still revolving around the sun.
Proponents of scientific consensus (no Aristarchus pictured)
How, then, today. The anthropogenic theory of global warming, since it was formed, has many supporters and opponents. However, every now and then, some of the ruling cite the “scientific consensus” as one of the arguments. I hope it is clear from these historical examples that this can never be an argument in anything that has the adjective “scientific”.