(From the Australian Climate Sceptics Blog) — Saturday, January 3, 2015
Science is never completely irrefutable
Many of the general public believe that the much promoted “consensus” is an actual consensus with virtually all scientists agreeing. Science is not judged by consensus; consensus is a political thought and not a scientific thought. Two well known scientists who opposed “consensus” and showed the prevailing consensus to be wrong are:
- Barry Marshall
Galileo Galilei supported of the Copernican theory that the earth and planets revolved around the sun. This challenged the “consensus” of Aristotle and the established order set by the Catholic Church.
Professor Barry Marshall, an Australian physician, Nobel Prize. Barry’s battle against “consensus” is detailed below.
Daniel Nebert, MD, is professor emeritus at the Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. He began studying the supposed “consensus” of UN IPCC scientists that “global warming is unequivocal and human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century”.
Dan wrote an opinion piece which was published in The Oregonian:July 13, 2014
Global warming is not settled science — Daniel Nebert
The 2013 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that “global warming is unequivocal and human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century.” During his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama declared “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” As a physician-scientist who has carried out basic research for more than 50 years, I agree that we should not pollute the planet unnecessarily; however, I find the above statements far beyond the truth.
Estimates of numbers of scientists who “believe” in global warming range between 40 percent and more than 99 percent. Those in disagreement have been called “skeptics,” “deniers,” and “nonbelievers.” However, “believing” and “denying” are terms used in “consensus science,” not terms in “basic science.”
What’s the difference? Basic science is defined as knowledge about, or study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observations. A theory (hypothesis) is tested by performing experiments and interpreting results either to prove or disprove the hypothesis in a way to minimize uncertainty. It’s best if those doing the experiments are “blinded”, i.e. samples are coded so that those doing the experiments are not biased toward any expected outcome. These experiments must also be repeated by other groups to confirm the original findings. Only after data have been properly collected, vetted and thoroughly corroborated, do we have a conclusion – with the least amount of uncertainty needed to establish a scientific fact. (Continue reading here….)