The most important Science [1] in the history of Science and history of The World… is no science at all. It’s consensus. Nothing more.

Let that ^^^ sink in.

I might consent, as a matter of caution. But I do so reluctantly and with skepticism. Most importantly, I’m not fooling myself and thinking I’m believing in something that is. Not. There. That is, Science. I’m not mindlessly parroting a narrative [2] - like a bad version of kindergarten telephone - because I’m afraid of asking obvious, worthy, and intelligent questions. I’m not a victim of my biases.

We’re done here.

1 - Please note, the upper case S.

2 - Examples given, there are others.

So when I hear “climate scientists” make big brush statements about the last 100 yrs, 500 yr, or even 1000 yrs, I laugh. When they make a proclamation about “since records were kept” I laugh again.

I laugh because I’ve seen that graph and I know they evidently haven’t seen it, or are for some reason pretending otherwise. I presume they’re trying to be funny. They’re certainly not being scientific serious.

I’m not arguing against climate change. All I’m asking for is scientific proof that isn’t correlation, hearsay, parroting, etc.

consensus === Science.

In fact the repetition of consensus is a classic tool of propaganda. “I’ve heard it a bunch of times… it must be true.” And if you don’t think scientists aren’t subject to the same influence, you’re naive.

Stop waving your finger.

Thanks for proving my point.

Maybe that’s not the case with climate? Yet, not a single shared link pointing to science-based proof.

This thread is a perfect example of the type of human behavior that leads to false consensus.

Read the articles in my Original comment.

Add this (book) to the list:

https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/05/05/children-pandemic-vi...

You said all you said and yet didn’t site anything. How is that? But this is exactly the problem. People take a position, bias kicks in. They double down. More bias. There’s no turning back.

Thank you. You’ve proven my point.

Why do you think “the experts” are any different? They’re likely worse, as they have more to lose.

As for the “never ever”, that’s another assumption. The climate record over the looooong term simply is not that accurate.

Of course, there is a fair amount of correlation and circumstantial evidence, but parroting that as absolute fact and causation does make it scientific. There is a lot of “telephone” on this issue. Those using hundreds of years or even thousands should be met with skepticism.

To clarify: I agree 100% that the climate is changing. It always have. Unfortunately, the rabbit hole of proof is not that deep. Most of “proof” is based on consensus and groupthink dictated by “the experts.”

- The climate has *always* changed. It’s been warmer. And yes, it’s been cooler. There is nothing abnormal about the climate changing.

- There is actually very little scientific proof that the current up tick, is human-made. Yes, there’s correlation with the Industrial Revolution, but that’s all it is atm, correlation. There’s little verifiable proof. It’s speculative. It’s a theory. Yes, there’s overwhelming consensus, but that’s still doesn’t make it fact. And consensus has been off target plenty of times in the past.

- “The science” isn’t always as fact / truth based as it would like us to believe. Scientists are human too. Egos, career aspirations, groupthink, jealousy, etc. The scientific method is a stunning standard. Unfortunately, it’s implemented / executed by humans, flawed humans.

There’s three sources exemplify #3, of course there are others.

https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-has-there-been-so-littl...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/09/dinosau...

https://longevity.stanford.edu/how-the-sugar-industry-shifte...

If China-made EVs eat the world, this Food project will be a “what was Ford thinking?” pin on the timeline plotting China’s conquest.

People love to praise “the science” when they mean the scientific method. What they always seem to forget is that method is executed by humans. Imperfect, sometimes ego driven humans.

And how did the system respond after the first win? It didn’t. It was same ol’ same ol’, and look what the led to.

Blaming Trump for the cluster fuck mess that gave him the opportunity to run and win… Sorry. Absolutely not his fault.

I don’t like the guy. But I’m not going to be foolish and blame him for winning. That’s not his fault.

But rather than own their failure, they work - hard - the “OMG it’s all his fault” narrative (read: deflection and distraction) and it works. So well, they keep doing it.

But repetition of a lie doesn’t make it true. Concession to buy into a lie, also doesn’t make it true.

No doubt DJT has his flaws. But he’s still a scapegoat. Why? Because no one is asking “How did we get here?”

Put another way, in terms of the political status quo, what changed between his two term? Hint: not a damn thing. That ain’t his fault. Your bias has blinded you

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47905984

Points: 431

# Comments: 329

He gets blamed for being the cause because those who actually led us into the decline don’t want to own their role in the mess. The fact that he got reelected is proof the status quo had lost the plot.

Sure, he’s a scoundrel, but ultimately he’s a scapegoat.

Leader create more / new leaders. That isn’t happening. MM has only himself to blame