I have written thousands of words, highlighted huge numbers of studies, and I cannot be arsed to do it again: it seems to go in one ear and out the other anyway.
# Ian Appleby wrote on insufferable scientific arrogance.
# I wrote this on scientific ethics. And these:
# On science being used to prove rather than test, in direct contravention of Sherlock Holmes' maxim, from Wisteria Lodge:
I have not all my facts yet but I do not think there are any insuperable difficulties. Still, it is an error to argue in front of your data. You find yourself insensibly twisting them round to fit your theories.
# Further, on suspect scientific motivation, which DK also comments on in his excellent prion article:
Or, if we are being truthful, at all; however, that hasn't stopped a great many scientists making Doomsday proclamations with an ever-increasing desperation in order to secure vast amounts of public money.
Scandalously—and despite the consistent non-fulfillment of the dire death toll predictions, and the lack of success in replicating the infection path—this has not stopped the prion theory becoming the "consensus" amongst politicians and scientists either too ignorant to know or too greedy to care.
# On scientific veracity itself.
# Devil's Kitchen therefore concluded, about scientists:
You are quite correct: the opinions of those people count for nothing. # Lord Nazh agreed but perhaps for different reasons. Referring to evidence of warming, DK went on to say:
Crap. As we now know, NASA's chief warming guy, James Hansen, was caught fiddling the figures. Actually, 1934 was the warmest year last century, and the four hottest years of last century all occurred in the 30s and not in the 90s, as previously claimed. I have a lot more to say, and a lot of links to insert but, you see, I just cannot be bothered.
Which is an interesting statement because I have a scientific answer to every argument DK could possibly bring up against climate change. The sceptic lobbies could then wade in with their 500 "eminent" scientists to counter my 500 "eminent" scientists.
So to Consensus
Scientists clearly can't agree. You see where this thing is headed, of course. Both sides are scrambling for the high moral ground and as the vast majority say there is consensus, then someone like Scott Burgess has to quote someone who says there's not. Lord Nazh, who says there's no climate change, is of course against the scientific community's consensus:
Consensus - you may just want to strike that word from your blog as it means NOTHING in science to have more people wrong than the other guy? :)
Now that Science is debunked
I'll always remember the girl at school who'd been force-fed pseudo-scientific rubbish by godless PC teachers and stated, as the gospel truth:
It's been scientifically proven that G-d doesn't exist.
Accepting that the scientists don't know what they're saying, are falsifying results, killing off wildlife and wasting billions of dollars, then the scientific consensus in schools and colleges against Intelligent Design becomes equally ludicrous - there is just no definitive proof of evolution occurring, at odds with the biblical version of events, which, by the way, was written much closer to the time. As DK says, in his usual inimitable way:
The most that we can say is that we just don't fucking know.
The simple assertion, backed up by countless fragments of evidence over the millennia, that there really is a Maker after all, no matter how much the irrational western Rationalists, in their cold, pitiless, indifferent world, try to snuff the idea out by taking over education, the arts and the organs of state power.