Politics disguised as science: a 12-point checklist for when to doubt a scientific ‘consensus’ | American Enterprise Institute - AEI

Politics disguised as science: a 12-point checklist for when to doubt a scientific ‘consensus’ | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
"...2017 article by Jay Richards “Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’” with the subtitle “Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd.” 

Here’s a condensed version of Jay Richard’s excellent article with a 12-point checklist of signs to guide us when considering whether to doubt a scientific “consensus,” using climate change as a test study:  

1. When different claims get bundled together. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. 

There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together so that if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s just plain intellectually dishonest.

2. When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate. When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are all but ubiquitous. They are even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example.

...Bottom Line: To adapt that old legal aphorism, when you’ve got decisive scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have decisive evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus."

Read all.