March 30, 2007
Consensus
Josh at Everyday Economist picks up on an interesting comment that a reader sent to Don Luskin.
Now, let me get this straight.When we are talking about climate change, “consensus” is invoked as the ultimate argument that this is, after all “settled science.” Breaking with that consensus gets one labeled anti-intellectual, anti-science. One is a “denier,” with its interwoven echoes of holocaust deniers and “being in denial” in the pop-psychological sense. It is prima facie evidence of being stupid or in the pay of big energy.
On the other hand, when we are talking about free trade, the argument that “99% of economists since the days of Adam Smith” are free traders, which might be taken to be “consensus,” appears to be unpersuasive…
In-freakin-deed. Deleterious Anthropogenic Warming of the Globe Posted by jk at March 30, 2007 11:49 AM
I'm waiting to drop the 90% of Americans believe in God consensus bomb on my liberal-atheist-global-warming-will-kill-us-all-if-King-George-doesnt-volvo driving arch-nemesis.
Posted by: AlexC at March 30, 2007 2:51 PMExcellent point AC. Various governments in the U.S. are already implementing compulsory measures to "reduce greenhouse gas emissions" based upon the global warming "consensus." In each of those jurisdictions it is now time for mandatory school prayer (out loud), civil fines for missed church services, and a replacement of civil law with God's law because "nobody worthy of serious consideration now denies the absolute existence of God."
Posted by: johngalt at March 30, 2007 3:24 PMI wade into this thread with severe trepidation but I'll add Taranto's point that a 58% majority believed the Earth was created in six days. vs. 63% who believed in global warming.
As long as we're doing science by democracy...
Posted by: jk at March 30, 2007 3:37 PM | What do you think? [3]