Consensus Science

I just ran across the text of a speech by Michael Chrichton, which,  although (perhaps because) he  is not a scientist, is surprisingly astute.   It applies particularly to planetary and solar science, which has just recently been exposed by the inability of the ‘standard model’ to explain why Venus’ rotation is rapidly slowing.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.  … In science consensus is irrelevant.  …  The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

NASA engineers have performed miracle after miracle in getting probes safely to all of the planets, returning valuable data and even (in most cases) making it available to the public. The problem in planetary science lies in the interpretation of the data.  In this blog I have cited dozens of cases where good data has been thrown out or misinterpreted to fit a presumed model.  The entire planetary science ‘community’ has bought into the assumption that the planets have been in their current orbits for 4.6 billion years.  The consummate ‘belief’ (a religious term?) in this hypothesis has resulted in what Michael Chrichton describes as Consensus Science.

Scientists seem unable to understand that they have few tools to delve into the past.  They use what they call proxies, but these are based on the same old assumption – that on the global or planetary scale, nothing has significantly changed for billions of years.  One example is the use of the ratio of oxygen isotopes to infer temperatures in ice core samples.  This does not allow for the Cyclic Catastrophism contention that the entire atmosphere of the Earth was changed between 3700 and 700 BC, for which there exists convincing evidence.

Radio Carbon 14 Dating correction curve Source:

Radio Carbon 14 Dating correction curve

That evidence (figure) is the result of counting tree rings to determine calibration factors for carbon 14 dating. If the relative concentrations of the elements in the atmospheric had remained constant throughout the last 6,000 years, this calibration curve would be a flat line. However, the curve clearly shows that during the period of Cyclic Catastrophism, 3700 to 700 BC or 5,700 to 2,700 BP (Before the Present), the  entire atmosphereic elemental composition was monotonically changing. This was due to the influx of the entire atmosphere of priori-Mars which orbited the Earth at a surface to surface distance of 34,250 km for a total of 1,500 years during this period.  Sea level on Earth also rose some 150 meters during this period due ot the influx of the oceans of priori-Mars, but earth scientists attribute this to the melting of glaciers in northern climes.

The bias against any dialog with consensus science is implemented by the editors of scientific journals, reinforced by the scientists whose ‘peer reviews’ refuse to publish papers, which present different views from their own, for which they are currently supported by government and foundation grants.

At least one scientist favored dialogue:

“What is called for is us to suspend assumptions so that they are neither carried or suppressed. They are neither good or bad, merely acknowledged”  David Bohm

On the other hand, Einstein’s view was:

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom

~ by Angiras on August 16, 2013.

One Response to “Consensus Science”

  1. Interesting content you post on your blog, i have shared this
    post on my fb

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: