Proof By Manufactured Consensus

Approach #1

  • Any scientist who doesn’t agree is ignorant, dishonest, evil or corrupt. He/she is not a true scientist.
  • Therefore, all scientists agree!

Approach #2

  • Shut down or boycott any journals which publish skeptics papers. Block skeptics from publishing.
  • Presto! The published literature is overwhelmingly in agreement!

Approach #3

  • Make up a phony poll showing an overwhelming consensus

Approach #4

  • Claim consensus without any evidence to back you up

Approach #5

  • Ignore all other scientific disciplines besides your narrow group of like minded individuals. “Glacial rebound? What’s that?

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Proof By Manufactured Consensus

  1. James Sexton says:

    That’s pretty much sums it up. A consensus of like minded ideologues. Pretty much akin to going to a TEA party and asking if we need to raise taxes or not.

    • Not as far fetched as you might think. Ken Buck’s Democratic opponent claimed that Buck wanted to raise taxes.

      “Coloradans haven’t heard a whopper this big since Richard Heene said his son was in the balloon,” said Buck campaign manager John Swartout. “Is Michael Bennet running for U.S. Senate, or auditioning for a reality TV show?

  2. Russell C says:

    Regarding your approach #s 1 & 2, I had those essentially combined as three points in my chronology ( http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6175 ) of the ’96-to-present smear of skeptic scientists:
    1. a scientific consensus says the debate is settled; Fact, end of story.
    2. skeptic scientists corrupted by big coal & oil industries seek to ‘reposition’ the public into believing AGW is not a fact.
    3. journalists don’t have to give equal weight to skeptic scientists because of the previous two points; they’re corrupt, and few in number.

    Regarding your approach #3 on a phony consensus, don’t forget the need to bolster such a consensus with highly questionable studies about alleged “unfair balance” in the media. Please see my blog about that, called “But wait, there’s more: The Boykoff / Gelbspan circle in the con-senseless global warming media coverage” ( http://www.freedompub.org/profiles/blogs/but-wait-theres-more-the )

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s