Questioning Consensus Banned

2:53 PM · Oct 7, 2021

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

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.”

― Michael Crichton

Two days ago, Bloomberg bragged about creating energy shortages via their climate scam.

What Does a Global Transition to Clean Power Mean? Energy Crises, Gas Shortages – Bloomberg

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Questioning Consensus Banned

  1. GWS says:

    Democrats can’t think beyond the first idea. From then on its whack-a-mole.

  2. This has been YouTube’s unofficial policy for at least two years, which is why I don’t touch it with a barge pole. The intended audience consists of brainless zombies who cannot be trusted to think for themselves. Even the reasoning from first principles with a logical argument which lends itself to potential refutation (otherwise known as scientific discourse) is unacceptable to these imbeciles.

    The approach is ridiculously heavy handed. The most that should be required is a mandatory disclaimer to the effect that the author may not be a recognised authority in the matter (caveate emptor). How the lunatic idea that authority trumps reason came to infest scientific debate escapes me, but it tolls the death knell for genuine science.

  3. rah says:

    And in the next breath they’ll tell you they believe in the first amendment and people’s right to peacefully express themselves.

    We all know the reason they’re doing this. They’re losing the argument and they know it! Keep up the great work Tony. Bill would be proud!

    • Robert Rust says:

      The fact is that the people have every right in the universe to violently or peacefully express themselves as they feel and determine is fit and appropriate. We aren’t the servant, we are the master, we merely need to stand up to protect what has always been ours, our universe-given natural rights and freedoms. Violence is the only force that will put the government and its world family cartel – banks, corporations, military, media, idle entertainment, mainstream schooling, and so forth- back in their place, the grave. Anything less is a child fantasizing about being saved or rewarded by the Tooth Fairy, Tinker Bell, Easter Bunny, and Santa Claus.

      • I wonder if that is the reason why the articles dealing with missile guidance systems are amongst the most popular downloads from my blog.

      • rah says:

        The 1st says nothing about that. But many of the founders sure did. And if course the Revolution was the ultimate expression of their beliefs about the Creators natural laws that apply to all mankind. The 2nd was of course intended to allow a means to combat those that would infringe upon those laws.

  4. Zenkov says:

    It’s hard to decide whether the founders of Google are stupid (possible, but unlikely) or simply inebriated by they own power, and looking to acquire more power, I.E. bad and/or crazy people.
    Power corrupts, and no one is immune from such corruption.
    In any case, Google’s anti-science and anti-democracy (illegal) actions are damaging our society. Breaking up this overarching and overbearing monopoly is long overdue.

    • It’s possible their reasons are commercial. The advertising industry is based on the old aphorism that the fool and his money are soon parted, hence it is more profitable to cater to fools, rather than the wise.

  5. Gator says:

    “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.”
    -Dr Michael Crichton

  6. Gator says:

    “Genius abhors consensus because when consensus is reached, thinking stops. Stop nodding your head.”
    -Albert Einstein

  7. Russell Cook says:

    “… Beginning next month, Google & YouTube will no longer monetize ads / videos that go against well-established scientific consensus around the existence / causes of climate change.”

    Why stop there? Surely Google / Youtube should also cut off all searches at their sites for anything from the skeptic side of the issue, while further gathering personal info on people making such inquiries. This might even be a great job creation opportunity; companies could make and sell distinctive apparel to people who pledge NOT to do such searches. Distinctive apparel such as sharp brown shirts with red armbands having a white circle containing 4 “G”s pivoting around the bottom of the letters, symbolizing “Good Guys Google Green.”
    https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/1446554422310408192

  8. Terry Shipman says:

    Circa 1973 there was a history professor at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock by the name of Grant Cooper. He was an avowed Communist who taught his classes from a Communist perspective. He was notified that the university would not be renewing his contract so he sued in federal court.

    While this was going on he was interviewed by channel 4 in Little Rock one Saturday afternoon. He was spouting the usual First Amendment argument and how his rights had been violated. The interviewer then asked Cooper a very insightful question, here paraphrased. “If you achieved your goal and this country became Communist would you guarantee First Amendment rights to those who would oppose Communism?”

    After almost 50 years I have never forgotten his reply. “Oh no, we would not. WE have the truth. WE would suppress all dissension.” Typical leftist. It’s the same thing we see today.

    He did win his case in federal court and the university was forced to offer him a contract. But he didn’t last and the last I heard Dr. Grant Cooper became a carpenter. So, I guess, he became one of the Proletariat, working with his hands and actually doing something useful.

  9. Peter Carroll says:

    All we ever hear is, Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter or some other platform, has banned such-and-such, or restricted, so-and-so.
    Who are these nameless, faceless, people, that make these decisions and on what grounds?
    What qualifications do they have, to decide what is right, or wrong?
    Obviously there is not a scientist, of any discipline, making this decision on climate change, ‘consensus’. (Except probably Michael Mann or James Hansen)
    Who decides what is racist? Who decides what is right wing, left wing, fascist, or anti fascist?
    All hiding behind the facade of the, “platform”. It’s usually called cowardice.

  10. roaddog says:

    Saint Greta is all-seeing and all-knowing, and anyone who questions her commits blasphemy. Civilization must be destroyed, so the unwashed masses can again suffer devoutly and appropriately, as they so devoutly did prior to the satanic industrial revolution.

  11. Gamecock says:

    I consider “platforms” to be a public accommodation. Their kicking someone off because they don’t like how someone parts their hair should be equivalent of not baking a cake for them, refusing them a hotel room or service in a restaurant.

    In my fantasy world, if they kick someone off, they better have strong evidence of criminal activity, else be prepared to pay a serious civil penalty.

    Imagine The Phone Company denying you service because they don’t like what you say.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *