Leading Expert Slams Consensus As “Anti-Science” …”When You Have Consensus, You Got Trouble!”

Because the data behind the man-made global warming hypothesis is turning out to be so frail and flakey, we often hear the proponents claiming “97% of climate scientists agree that man is now driving the climate” as an argument.

Never mind the 97% figure is a bogus one to start with.

Whenever the data basis underpinning a theory is a shambles, then claims of consensus among experts are often the last go-to argument in a bid to salvage the theory. This is not only true in climate science, but also in the science of nutrition and heart disease.

Dr. Tim Noakes has posted a video on the horrible misconceptions involving the once highly ballyhooed high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet. For some 40 years 99% of the experts claimed the diet was good for our hearts and health. Saturated fat was villainized by junk science cranked out by a less-than honest-vegetable oil industry.

So what does Tim Noakes think of consensus in science?

At the 10:16 mark we hear something us man-made global warming skeptics can truly relate to (and AGW proponents can’t stand hearing). It’s why the argument of “consensus among experts” is in fact just the last gasp of a dying scientific theory and so must never be accepted. He tells his audience:

So, these are consensus guidelines. And you must never trust consensus guidelines because they are anti-science. Science is not about consensus; it’s about disproof, disbelief and skepticism. It’s not about consensus. When you have consensus, you got trouble.”

Of course there are are some not-so-bright readers out there who will claim that a few lumps of sugar does not disprove “climate science”. Of course it doesn’t. But what it does show, however, is that consensus among scientists does not make the science right – no matter how broad it is. Scientific consensus is often totally wrong. This we now seeing in the case in the high-carb, low-fat diet, and it it is also becoming clear that it is also the case with CO2 and climate.

Just think for a moment of all the major factors warmists currently deny within the science itself, everything from the models being wrong, the 18-year pause, the sun’s impact on climate cycles, the oceanic cycles, the Medieval Warm Period, etc.

Also in the case of climate science, “follow the money”.

Also do note that despite the overwhelming evidence and huge success of Dr. Noakes in treating obesity, there continue to be the stubborn diehard stalwarts of the old theory – desperately clinging to it to the very end. It doesn’t matter what massive evidence gets presented to them, they’ll continue denying, denying, denying.

Myself I can confirm what Dr. Noakes professes. I’ve been on a low-carb, high-fat diet for some one and half years and have seen a huge difference in health.


14 responses to “Leading Expert Slams Consensus As “Anti-Science” …”When You Have Consensus, You Got Trouble!””

  1. Mindert Eiting

    And you can maintain consensus by declaring something as hidden when a prediction fails to realize, like missing heat hiding in the oceans, missing ocean water hidden in the soil, missing intermediate species that did not fossilize, witches who committed their evil deeds only during the night, huge quantities of missing matter hiding between the galaxies (for some reason not on earth), missing witnesses who were silenced by the CIA, missing inhomogeneity’s smoothed by cosmic inflation, sexual desires hidden in the unconscious, workers whose revolutionary will was suppressed by religious faith, a multiverse with numerous universes beyond observation, female composers who were not allowed to make music, aliens who are not that stupid to tell us the planets where they hide, and rape victims who just forgot the most dramatic experience of their life.

    1. John F. Hultquist

      most dramatic experience of their life
      I can’t speak for such victims but I have no, that is zero, recollection of about 8-10 seconds of my life. Sitting on a horse, giving a cue to step forward, watching the front shoulder begin to move – blank – my feet up, my head down, in free fall, looking at a fence rail from above. I reached out and grabbed the rail with both hands and my feet pivoted and landed on the ground. This was 60 feet from where we started. I was now outside the fence and the horse – completely calm – stood on the other side. Nice horse otherwise.

      1. Mindert Eiting

        I’m afraid, John, hypnotherapists cannot help you to get those seconds back but they may recover false memories, as demonstrated by Elisabeth Loftus in her experiments.

    2. Edward.

      Claim that the € was a good idea, Brussels will fix the sun while it ain’t shining, windmills are going to solve all our ills,
      next week another 10, 000 gimmegrants landing on Greek islands are going to make all our lives SO much better
      and smart meters mean you’re gonna save money!
      Federal EUrope will provide milk and honey for the world to come and sup here and you silly white EUropeans are so old hat.
      Goldman Sachs are the good guys…
      and Isis/al Nusra are the better option between them and Bashar al Assad and Russian forces.
      The Ukraine government was innocent and never are Fascist lunatics – supported and constantly bailed out by er……. Brussels.
      Obama is a democratic leader, full of the milk of human kindness and Hillary will continue to lerve the world.
      Corporate giants only have your best interests at heart.

      And butter is bad for you.

    3. Colorado Wellington

      And as I was repeatedly lectured, because of our bourgeois prejudices and false, class-based concepts of liberty, the historically objective existence of social justice in the Communist systems also remains forever hidden to us.

      1. yonason

        It will be revealed at the proper time – with the return of the hula hoop, and the second coming of Elvis.

  2. wyoskeptic

    Science is the pursuit of reality, or perhaps more correctly, man’s effort to define mankind’s understanding of reality.

    Any researcher anywhere can make any claim of any kind, but unless that claim is directly and completely tied to reality, it is going to be flat out wrong. Reality is going to do what reality is going to do, regardless of any hysteria to the contrary. Saying a certain thing is going to happen, insisting it is going to happen, screaming it is going to happen does not change the likelihood of it happening one iota. If it is going to happen, it is going to happen. If not, it is not. Reality is what reality does.

    The only question is how close to reality is man’s perception. The further off it is, the more man is going to be surprised when his prediction does not match reality.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    The “consensus” (from authority) argument doesn’t actually mean the concept is false. For example, experts say Earth is not flat. Still, we should consider such statements as useless and/or invalid.
    I don’t recall seeing any percentage of experts (which ones?) claiming the high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet (HCLFD) was the only way to go. Clearly, many medical types and the U.S. Govt. did, and do. So, authorities claimed HCLFD was settled science. Many did, and still do, believe this. Many other “experts” never believed.

    In contrast, the “97% of climate scientists agree” is a bogus public relations stunt. The perpetrators thereof should be prosecuted for fraud. The U.S. Govt’s Federal Trade Commission frequently enforces “Truth in Advertising” laws. It is a travesty that the FTC has not done so with the 97% claim.

    Someone should write code that would crawl through the internet and do a find (97%) and replace (.02%) operation, and include a link to a proper explanation of why the first number is bogus.

  4. reformed warmist of logan (qld, aust)

    Hi Pierre,
    Congrats. on a great few pieces you have had on cholesterol in the last short while.
    This piece in particular is an absolute “Home Run”!
    You should be very proud of this piece.
    I have an extensive amount of interest in both the areas it focusses on (more to follow in coming days/weeks).
    As a result of our shared interests I hope you take my feed-back as intended.
    Keep up the great work.
    Warm regards, Lindsay Phillips

  5. Svend Ferdinandsen

    Consensus as an argument means normally that the theory behind is vague.
    You don’t need consensus when the theory is well proved and accepted, say like newtons mechanics and planetary moving, it comes by itself and from excellent predictions of the future.
    It is alarming, that all those 97% have not been able to make a convincing argumentation for their theory.

  6. yonason

    At 37:20 of the video he mentions Dr. Alessio Fasano, who used to work on Cholera at U. Md. He’s a brilliant guy, and a top notch researcher.

    1. yonason

      Another presentation by Dr. Fasano that goes into more detail on why gluten is BAD for many (most) of us.

    2. yonason


      Don’t quit gluten unless you know you have to

  7. M E

    I remember when most of geological science was against continental drift.!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy