History (at NASA) shows what’s wrong with “Scientific Consensus”

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun. (NIV)

Quotes from NASA’s Earth Observatory pages about Alfred Wegener:

  • the international geological community’s reaction to Wegener’s theory was militantly hostile.
  • Wegener’s […] cogent and comprehensive work […] was impossible to ignore and ignited a firestorm of rage and rancor
  • most of the blistering attacks were aimed at Wegener himself, an outsider who seemed to be attacking the very foundations of geology.
  • Even though Wegener assembled many interlocking pieces of evidence to support his ideas, they were so radical that he was often ridiculed.
  • Because of this abuse,Wegener could not get a professorship at any German university.
  • In 1926 Wegener was invited to an international symposium in New York called to discuss his theory. Though he found some supporters, many speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult.
  • the merit of much […] of his supporting evidence was not widely recognized at the time.
  • As a result, most geologists eventually dismissed his theory as a fairy tale or “mere geopoetry.”

Past performance suggests any date between 2018 and 2091 as the year CO2-based CAGW (or CO2-CAGW) went the way of the dodo.

10 Replies to “History (at NASA) shows what’s wrong with “Scientific Consensus””

  1. povero morabito è dura durissima per te esser rifiutato dal mondo scientifico. Sarà mica che non sei così bravo ed intelligente come credi?
    p.s. volutamente in italiano

      1. sempre meno cretino di chi crede di aver capito tutto ogni giorno della settimana. Quanto tempo passi davanti allo specchio a dirti quanto dei intelligente e bravo? Se fossi intelligente capiresti quanto sei ridicolo.

  2. In hindsight, I wonder if I should go back to embolden the key words. So what’s wrong with scientific consensus?

    militantly hostile
    firestorm of rage and rancor
    blistering attacks aimed at Wegener himself
    he was often ridiculed
    abuse
    speakers were sarcastic to the point of insult
    a fairy tale or “mere geopoetry”

    Perhaps, what’s wrong with scientific consensus is that makes consensus scientists behave like a mindless, cruel, antiscientific crowd.

    1. Your ‘definition’ of scientific consensus is simply bullshit. You probably had bad results in scientific topics (bad science teachers?); this will also explain why you’re so weak in scientific argumentation. Don’t be overwhelmed by your nightmares, there are good pharmacologic remedies.

  3. You are apparently not aware of what a scientific theory is. The ‘phenomenon’ you advocate is impossible to observe without a sound explanation for it. If you refer to the best evidence for Wegener’s theory at the time, i.e., the common fossil assemblages in different continents, you can easily understand that there could be other scientific explanations for them (i.e., continental bridges). The evidences for continent drifting were not sufficient in the first half of the 20th century. The idea was suggestive but without evidences you cannot make science. As long as the evidences were found, the plate movements were accepted. Before this, the speculations are really geopoetry; sorry, your example is definitely wrong.

  4. Yep, it’s very interesting. But you failed to remember that Wegener WAS wrong. The proposed mechanism for moving continents was wrong and tectonic plates are NOT continents. So the scientific consensus was right and he was wrong.
    You chose the wrong example. Cheers!

    1. Not really. You’re mixing up phenomenon and explanation. Wegener was obviously right on the former, and was perfectly aware he didn’t have a mechanism for the latter.

Leave a Reply to omnologos Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.