This content was deleted by the author. You can see it from Blockchain History logs.

Scientific Consensus: This phrase should make you cringe. At least if you understand science.


An appeal to authority fallacy that has been used on many topics is that Scientific Consensus is all that is needed to prove a thing or disprove a thing. This is NOT how science works. People saying this are not actually practicing science at all. If they have a degree but are ignoring the scientific method that doesn't make them a scientist.

When you are using the scientific method then at that time you would be a scientist. If you are not using the scientific method then you are not a scientist. Why is this important?

There is no such thing as consensus in the scientific method. This also indicates that consensus is NOT an aspect of science. It is irrelevant. If 99.999% believe a false thing guess what? It's still false. If 0.001% believe the true thing guess what? It is still true. Consensus is totally irrelevant in science. Whenever you hear that set of words it is an emotional attack on you. It is an Appeal to Authority AND an Appeal to Popularity. In a sense it is more about using something like peer pressure to get you to go along with a narrative and try to FIT IN. That doesn't make it true, and it certainly is not scientific.

For those of you that may want a refresher. Here is a quick and dirty steps of the scientific method as written by me for this post. I didn't go google it to try to find the most perfectly worded variant. You are more than welcome to do that yourself.

  1. Make observations - Look, Listen, Touch, Taste, Smell, etc. Use your senses. Take notes mentally or on a device or tool.
  2. Form a hypothesis about your observations to try to explain them. This can also be referred to as speculating, or guessing based upon observation.
  3. Create a test to try to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Such tests should be repeatable by other people, and you should have a control if possible that is not part of the test to compare results to.
  5. Examine the results of the test. If the hypothesis fails, go back to the hypothesis stage and come up with a new one based upon the new information. Failure is not a bad thing in science. It leads us to more refined and different ideas.
  6. Submit your data and testing methodology to the scientific community and wait for verification and repeatable results. This can result in failure as well and end up going back to the hypothesis stage.
  7. If you make it this far then you now have a THEORY. This doesn't mean it is without question. Science always questions and challenges everything. We've had long standing theories that eventually were replaced by better ones after long periods of the theory being dominant.

    8. I watched a video from Anthony Brian Logan on youtube showing an interview between CNN and the FOUNDER of the Weather Channel concerning Climate Change. The video is actually quite entertaining. There was no science IN the video, but what the founder said about Consensus was 100% accurate. It is usually consensus that is being used to slam issues through the public mind. They are treating us like FOOLS by expecting us to treat science as though consensus matters.
    Click here to go to his webpage and watch it!

    As far as this NO CONSENSUS B.S. it has been used many times in history for things we now believe and that are foundations of our scientific world these days.

    There is a great series about Albert Einstein called GENIUS that shows how many times he basically encountered this wall of people trying to protect consensus rather than actually caring about the truth.

    If someone uses CONSENSUS in combination with so-called scientist I hope you're ears will perk up from this point on and you'll notice that as a big red flag. You should... it is a huge red flag.

    NOTE: Nowhere in this post did I say there is no Climate Change. I won't say this because the climate is always changing and has always been historically changing. It typically does so over large amounts of time, but it happens whether man is present or not. So saying there is no Climate Change would be false. I can say with a pretty good degree of certainty that what they are talking about on the political scope of things has big flaws. The things they push as solutions to this ISSUE are clearly political and about money as they are not an actual solution. Carbon Taxes are not a solution. They allow the worst offenders to continue, and they allow some way to penalize and put their demands and mandates on whomever an unelected panel decides should be targeted. This is about power, subjugation, and money.

    If they don't run straight to CONSENSUS and instead they make all data, data collection methods, and tests available for replication then perhaps we could actually use science. They are not doing this. In fact, they expect you to just TRUST them. This again is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

    Now another attack they use here is a False Dichotomy. This is the "You are either with us, or you are against us" mentality. There are usually more than just two choices. You are not immediately a DENIER because you don't agree with some aspects of this "political movement". Yet that is what they choose to try to use. This is a false dichotomy.