When was the last time 98% of scientists got something important wrong?
I think when &quot;science&quot; has been infused with power, so that it is no longer the truth of an idea that gives it legs (the &quot;marketplace of ideas&quot;) but an idea&#x27;s ability to produce power, then &quot;science&quot; will get all sorts of weird results. Power corrupts even &quot;science.&quot;<p>We began infusing science with power in the early 1900s. Over time, the ideas that win are those that are powerful (politically), even if untrue (or only weakly true, relative to what is being claimed).<p>There&#x27;s every reason to believe that &quot;climate science&quot;[0] is weakly true, but that its ability to attain scientific consensus is primarily that it is much more powerful than competing theories that explain the same evidence. Climate science gives you control over multi-trillion dollar economies. Other theories do not.[1]<p>One way to gauge the trustworthiness of &quot;climate science&quot; purely as an idea is to imagine an alternative: suddenly, the Sun starts putting out less energy and the Earth cools. In fact, enough less energy that we are expecting a 1.5 deg Celsius <i>decline</i> in global temperature in ten years.<p>Ask yourself: what is your confidence level that additional man-made CO2 emissions will be able to counteract this so that the average temperature doesn&#x27;t actually drop? If I&#x27;m honest, it&#x27;s extremely low. I don&#x27;t trust &quot;climate scientists&quot; to be able to warm the Earth on demand by injecting more CO2 into the air.<p>[0] &quot;Climate science&quot; is basically the idea that CO2 (functionally) acts like a thermostat for the Earth&#x27;s climate at the extremely low concentration levels we see today (due to hypothesized &quot;positive feedback loops&quot; interacting badly with man-made CO2-induced warming). Man is a significant cause of the increased CO2 we see today.<p>[1] A (powerless) competing theory (because it gives no control over multi-trillion dollar economies) is that the Sun functionally acts like a thermostat for the Earth, that CO2 is incapable of heating the Earth at the extremely low concentration levels we see today—or levels 20x as high we&#x27;ve seen in the past 100,000 years—and that we see more CO2 in the past during warm periods (again: caused by the Sun heating the Earth) because the CO2 capacity of the oceans is lower when the temperature is higher, meaning CO2 is released into the atmosphere as the Earth warms, and moves back into the oceans as it cools. Also, there are no &quot;positive feedback loops&quot; in the Earth that would cause is to uncontrollably heat up due to tiny changes in CO2 levels. The only thing that actually heats or cools the Earth at the level of &quot;climate&quot; is the Sun. Man is a significant cause of the increased CO2 we see today, but that increased CO2 is too insignificant to cause warming by itself. If the Earth is warming (or cooling), it&#x27;s because of the Sun.