Chricton gave a fabulous talk as part of a Caltech lecture series a while back regarding "consensus" and "science" and how these concepts were antithetical.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

I linked to it on my blog a while back, but readers may find a transcript here.

I forgot to mention that the lecture is almost entirely about global warming and was given in January 2003.

because researchers must take a dire outlook on it in order to secure funding for their work.

Isn't that true of the other side of the global warming debate as well - i.e. a direct financial interest in seeing the consensus come out "their way?" If polluters will receive a financial benefit should global warming be discredited, does that also discredit their arguments against it?

That said, show me a researcher who thinks he's going to be showered with grants and riches if he goes aggressive on global warming and I'll show you a researcher with a hole in his head. Now if they could somehow figure out a way to weaponize global warming, then we'd be talking the big bucks.

And exactly what is Crichton's qualification for this critique? The only one I can see is a conservative political viewpoint. An M.D. is not a research scientist and vice-versa. One of the greatest failures in some people when looking at opinions about scientific issues is thinking that just because someone has an advanced degree in one field that they necessarily know whereof they speak when it comes to an entirely different discipline. It helps if the opinion being expressed agrees with what the reader/listener wants to believe.

Let's be honest about that canard about funding depending on producing a dire outlook. The big bucks are on the side of the argument. Corporations have far more money to put up people to support their viewpoint.

Science isn't about consensus? Here's how it's supposed to work. Someone comes up with a hypothesis. It's tested, read about in peer reviewed journals and if it's lucky it graduates to the point of being a theory. Then it is a creature of consensus. It provides a basis to investigate other things. Often it does not explain every last detail and then it gives an opening to its critics. It is the job of someone who doubts its validity to propose an argument with a new basis to challenge the old consensus. His job is to come up with a new hypothesis that explains more than the old one and can survive challenges from those who wish to defend the consensus, the old theory. So yes, consensus DOES enter into valid science.

Now if they could somehow figure out a way to weaponize global warming, then we'd be talking the big bucks.

It *IS* a weapon.

It's a weapon against burgeoning 3rd World populations who are too poor to afford air-conditioned shelter. Too poor to relocate from coastal regions to inland regions when the flooding starts. They will be too poor to afford food when droughts bring widespread famine.

It's the "Final Solution" for Class Warfare.

Here's how it's supposed to work. Someone comes up with a hypothesis. It's tested, read about in peer reviewed journals and if it's lucky it graduates to the point of being a theory."

Jim S,

Did you read the transcript of Chricton's lecture? There is no hypothesis testing of the global warming theory. At least not in the classical sense. The claims that humans are causing global warming (or could stop it for that matter) are not falsifiable. There is no "test" that can reject or confirm the null hypothesis. Therefore, it is not science in the classical sense. It is a consensus among people who happen to be scientists. They should be honest about things.

The globe has warmed and cooled throughout its history. Models that claim to prove that global warming is a human caused phenomenon require "educated guesses" for MANY variables. Therefore, it's a case of garbage in - garbage out.

I encourage you to read his lecture.

The comments that prompted my post were not specific to the global warming issue. They were framed as a general statement about the place of consensus in all of science, not just global warming. That having been said it must be recognized that there have been clues as to what caused other periods of warming. One major warming period coincided with truly massive volcanic eruptions that dwarf anything we have currently seen. There also has not been enough of a measurable increase in solar activity to account for the levels of warming that we've seen. Human activity is not just pouring greenhouse gases into the environment although that's what gets most of the attention. It's deforestation of some of the best carbon sinks in the world at an appalling rate. It's huge amounts of construction and other activity that affects the Earth's albedo. There are also many different things that can and should be done to make a difference. Why in heaven's name are our cities so full of roofs that are black or some other dark color? Some people are doing something but more does need to be done that won't break the bank or stifle economic activity. Also, keep in mind that some proposals might cost existing dirty industries some money but that there would be other companies providing those clean up services that would provide jobs of their own.

In spite of propaganda to the contrary most of the Bush administration's voluntary efforts appear to consist of having people volunteer and then do nothing. Their entire philosophy seems to be talk big and do as little as possible. Look at the recent report on Arctic melting. The Bush administration claims that they want more research, more good science. Then when presented with some that they helped fund they blink.