Some of us do not go along with the consensus. We dare to question evolution and anthropogenic global warming. Some of us question one or the other, and some of us are radical enough to question both. When we speak up and express our doubts, we're often told that "it's the consensus" as if that was a reason to accept what "scientists say" and to stop asking questions.
First of all, saying that global warming is a consensus is the opposite of the truth, there are scientists who deny it, and not just a fringe element. There are also scientists who deny evolution and the Big Bang, including credentialed creation scientists. Don't get me started on the lie that Bill Nye perpetuates on how you must believe in evolution or science cannot happen...
Second, majority opinion does not determine truth. If you want consensus, go into politics. There are things that were considered to be scientific facts that were abandoned later on. True scientific inquiry does not seek to silence people with differing views. Instead, the evidence is examined and considered.
So, when should we doubt the "scientific consensus" of global warming?
A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).
Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”
Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink.You can finish reading "When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’", here.