CAGW Orthodoxy: How Do The True Believers Know They're Not Wrong

A recent article in Live Science provides a great example of "begging the question." Entitled "Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong," the article is a model of journalistic credulity. Quoting historian Naomi Oreskes extensively, author Andrea Thompson demonstrates why journalists, and the people who take them seriously, cannot think.

The title of this posting is meant to reflect the technique of "begging the question" that the title of the Live Science article utilises. The title of an article can be an almost subliminal persuader. "Scientists?" What "scientists?" Thompson does not really say, other than to quote Oreskes, an historian. When she does quote Richard Lindzen--an MIT atmospheric scientist of high esteem among peers--Thompson hastens to quote historian Oreskes again, in order to neutralise Lindzen's short quote.

Of course this blog is entitled to rhetorical flourish, since its theme is the coming singularity/apocalypse and what lies on the other side. A supposedly neutral article of science journalism in Live Science and other "Science" websites is supposed to reflect the reality of the subject matter--not to use logical fallacies to convince the unpersuaded to adopt the author's viewpoint.

Here is Oreske's essay in Science where she makes the claim of scientific consensus in climate research.

Here are criticisms of Oreskes study from Benny Peiser, and from Viscount Monckton.

Read the links above and consider how "consensus" is arrived at in science. Does science arrive at consensus by "shutting down the debate?", as Oreskes has attempted in a rather underhanded and dishonest way?

Or is "consensus" arrived at (if ever) by allowing all theories to attempt to prove themselves in a public forum--without editorial bias or other forms of intentionally skewing access to ideas?

The future of science, and how humans utilise their minds to arrive at closest approximations of truth, is at stake. If humans forget what "begging the question" means--the fallacy it represents--they have tied part of their brains behind their backs.