Consensus, Climate Change, and the Scientific Process

Consensus does not mean science or truth.
As we have noticed on this site alone many times, peer review is not a guarantee of truth or even accuracy. In a like manner, scientific consensus is not a guarantee of truth or accuracy, either. Browbeating consensus skeptic is not conducive to the scientific process. Labeling someone as a "science denier" is a childish way to avoid examining legitimate objections to majority opinion, you savvy?

The coming ice age — I mean, global warming — I mean, global climate change — has deep political motivations, including globalism and taxation to force people into submission. It also is based on materialistic evolutionary beliefs including deep time and that there is no sovereign God who is in control. Climate change is definitely not an established fact, old son. People indulge in groupthink and listen to yahoos like Bill Nye the Stalinist Guy (who believes in throwing "climate change dissenters" in jail) to support their beliefs. Climate change enthusiasts wave away those who dare to disagree with their views.

Secular scientists have a habit of cherry-picking data and neglecting information that do not fit the narrative they wish to promulgate. We recently saw how Charles Darwin's demented stepchildren finally admitted that dinosaurs have no evolutionary past, ignore possible alternative explanations for effects attributed to dark matter, having nothing to study but still calling astrobiology a science, the evosplaining of diatoms, terrible explanations for the "faint young sun paradox" — and those are just a few examples of incompetent evolutionary science presented on this site. Follow those links to additional links and you'll soon have a wagon train-load of material.

Is climate change "settled science"? Not hardly! In reality, thinkers have been pointing out numerous flaws in it over the years, including fraudulent data adjustments. Of course, feral activists will go haywire and basically say, "That's not true! They're all liars!"

That is simply an attempt to avoid inconvenient truths. To compound the problem, the secular science industry is blind to its biases.

We see secular scientists ignoring or twisting information to promote the narrative. After all, tell those in control of the grants what they want to hear, and you bring in those big simoleans. It's who they are, and what they do.

Volcanoes put out gasses and ash, but "dirty thunderstorms" that are fed by ash from wildfires can put as much carbon smoke in the air as a volcano. But scientists have not studied these very much. Tiny particles in the sky and the clouds that form around them reflect light back into the sky, which may contribute to global cooling. These are not understood very well. Add anthropogenic combustion iron and that microbes eat rocks and give of carbon dioxide to the neglected mix. Many things that may affect the climate have not been sufficiently studied, yet activists feel compelled to blame humans for things these doom merchants do not understand. By the way, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but plants that our Creator put here use it and give back oxygen. Do secularists want people to know basic science? No, they suppress critical thinking! Just shut up and obey. Believe the consensus.
We hear it all the time; 99% of scientists agree. All it takes, though, is one overlooked fact to tumble a consensus.
Occasionally we take a look at matters other than creation and evolution, when they are instructive about the scientific process. The scientific consensus on climate change (previously known as “global warming”) is a case in point. Scientists have been so dogmatic about it they have convinced most major world governments to enact draconian measures to counteract it. Climate has changed drastically in the past before humans evolved, they will admit, but they insist that the current climate excursion was caused by people trying to increase their happiness and reduce their suffering. . . .
We don’t quote climate “denialists” to get into the mud on this issue. We just look at the secular news itself, which is almost uniformly on the side of the climate consensus, and ask questions. . . We pass over the ridiculous stories about what’s coming with global warming, like this headline on, “Competition between males improves resilience against climate change.” Claims like that nobody could ever know for sure. Instead, we focus on the epistemology of the consensus: how do they know what they claim to know about human culpability for a warming climate? Did the consensus take the following factors into account?
Some of the "following factors" mentioned were briefly mentioned above. To read the entire article and learn some important details, click on "More Reasons to Doubt Scientific Omniscience". You may also want to see "Craziness in Climate Consensus".