How madmen think
JUNE 22, 2011. From 1 to 4 this afternoon, all politically correct statements are bullshit.
“The scientific consensus is even stronger. It has been endorsed by every National Academy of science of every major country on the planet, every professional scientific society in the study of global warming and 98 percent of climate scientists throughout the world. In the latest and most authoritative study by 3,000 of the very best scientific experts in the world, the evidence was judged ‘unequivocal.’”
This is the sad man, Al Gore, writing in Rolling Stone.
I could start off picking at his remarks. How does he know 98% of climate scientists in the world endorse the notion of manmade dangerous warming? He has a slide rule in his shirt pocket? He gets hourly updates from the Thought Police?
And the category “climate scientist” doesn’t exist as a discipline in most universities.
How does he personally know this latest and greatest study was conducted by 3000 of the “very best scientific experts in the world?” In fact, how can a study be conducted by 3000 scientists? Did its publication list all of them? Alert to Guinness Book of World Records.
But these aren’t the core issues. The core mind-boggle is that a human of supposed intelligence can think that consensus is the way science is done.
When a researcher does an experiment, his work and methods are supposed to be tested by many other independent researchers, who perform his experiment for themselves. This is called replication.
But even if they agree the first scientist is right, the buck doesn’t stop there. Because replication has a reason and purpose: arriving at the the truth.
That’s the standard.
And truth requires open and honest and extensive debate in professional journals. A back and forth explication of issues and questions and shortcomings.
In the area of climate science, this has never happened. As in: never.
So whether it’s Al Gore, or Jon Stewart, or Bill Maher, or other such important scientists, we must reserve judgment, despite the confirming applause that thunders from their college audiences.
Even when I was in college, I knew students massed in a hall were lunatics.
Gore is a champion of consensus. He lives by it. He builds it, profits from it, and then turns around and cites it.
Using consensus is the last refuge of democracy.
The scientific merits of global warming or any other hypothesis are not about a vote.
As a medical reporter, I’ve heard the consensus argument many times. And in each case, I’ve discovered the consensus was wrong. Often it was promoted as a strategy for making profit or protecting it.
And when I write about imagination, consensus is also a factor, because it is the very essence of surrender to a reality without imagination. Consensus is what you get when imagination does not play a featured role. It’s the default and leftover structure of society.
Consensus, in this regard, is a movie called The Creation of the Drones.
Prior to any important, shattering scientific breakthrough, if you had polled “the best experts” and asked them whether or not the substance of that breakthrough might be true, the majority would have said no. That should tell you something.
It tells you that humanity at large wants to huddle in its bunker of assumed and traditional reality and protect against the incursion of the New.
Then much later, humanity says, of the breakthrough, “Oh, of course. Everybody knows that.”
Everyone knows it because everyone agrees.
So much for consensus.
Yesterday, on my radio show on prn.fm —I interviewed Mary Holland, co-author of the book, VACCINE EPIDEMIC. One of the upshots of that conversation was: the official consensus about vaccines is artificially constructed. It is sustained through fear, peer pressure, media close-mindedness, and government intervention.
Which is to say, frankly, that no one in his right mind would accept the pronouncements of the pro-vaccine “community” at face value.
A drone would, though. A drone would automatically assume that all vaccines are necessary and wonderful, because he had heard it voiced so many times, from so many towers of authority, with so much assurance. A drone would slip right into the consensus, thinking he was a first cousin to a “real scientist.”
On July 27, I’ll be interviewing Andrew Wakefield on my radio show. Don’t miss that one. Andy knows a great deal, first hand, about how the consensus works. He was bulldozed by its architects.
And now, here’s your definition for today:
“Politically correct”: A statement, idea, or position based on, and backed up by, the engineering of a false consensus.
Boom, you’re a PhD.
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com