The late Dr. Michael Crichton in a speech at the California Institute of Technology made the following observation:
“I want to …talk about … the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. …
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results … .
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. … .” … Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E = mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
In recent decades, the term consensus science has come to be associated with climate change/global warming. The appeal to a consensus has been used to avoid honest and open debate about the extent of human influence on the climate system. Climate change has become the poster child for the widely documented corruption in many fields of science resulting from competition for funding, tying funding to specific policy outcomes, and the increasing pressure to publish or perish.
Norman Rogers in the May 14 issue of the American Thinker began his article citing President Eisenhower’s farewell address warning that a “scientific-technological elite” dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy”. Scientific advice to policy makers has become heavily influenced by political agendas and rewards to organizations and scientists that provide the necessary scientific support for political objectives. In the case of climate change, the influence can be traced back to the White House and Al Gore.
He's absolutely right, "consensus science" is not science at all but a process where scientists are bought to express the predetermined results and conclusions, much like in corrupt politics. "Consensus science" is corrupt.
RE: “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics..."
And politics it is.
In Canada, that's all that it boils down to.
Case in point was the "wrongful dismissal' of Dr. Shiv Chopra, a scientist with the Federal Government of Canada (Health Canada) who spoke out regarding Monsanto's Bovine Growth Hormone drug which was to be approved by him, and to which he refused to sign off on, for more obvious reasons known to us now.
Dr. Chopra wrote a book about this life changing event:
Here is a recent example; a perfect example of how "Consensus is the business of politics...POLICY"
Shiv Chopra - Issues about Health and Food Safety