YouTube Comments: The Scientific Consensus Rejected Heliocentrism
By Collin Maessen on comment
For this blog I already have the Mail Call series for messages that I receive that I want to respond to publicly. Strangely enough I didn’t have anything similar for the comments I get on YouTube. Despite me already having reacted to those comments on this blog. There’s more than enough material in my comment sections that I can use as inspiration for blog posts.
So lets kick off this new blog post series with one comment that already starts with one of my pet peeves:
Colin Colin Colin.
If you start your comment with something that comes across as condescending at least get the spelling for my name right. It’s listed right below the video, it doesn’t take much effort to check if you’ve written it correctly.
Please don’t compare evolution and other areas of science with AGW. Empirical evidence has been obtained for each of these unlike AGW. That is the real difference.
What he’s referring to is me saying in the video “science isn’t done by consensus, but there is a consensus view on what the science says based on our best understanding of the available evidence. Just like there is a consensus view on the subject of anthropogenic global warming, there is one for evolution, plate tectonics, big bang, germ theory, in all the scientific fields and subjects.”
It’s me addressing the point made by Monckton that science isn’t done by consensus. And of course science isn’t done by consensus, a scientific consensus is the result of what research and evidence shows. There are multiple lines of evidence showing we are the cause of the increase in CO2 and multiple lines of evidence showing what the consequences are. Saying there is no empirical evidence is wrong.
Also the belief in evolution or not isn’t going to mean the difference in life and death for poor people but the belief in AGW can sspell death for millions if not billions in developing countries who rely on fossil fuel burning for their very survival and development of their countries.
I beg to differ, not accepting the theory of evolution can have deadly consequences. Vaccines for example rely heavily on our understanding of evolutionary mechanism to make them effective and finding new treatments. Without evolution we wouldn’t have our current level of understanding in medicine.
And why do commenters who reject the science behind anthropogenic global warming almost always equate fossil fuels with energy? It’s not our only source of energy. It also ignores that if fossil fuels are so great, why are so many still living in poverty? In fact, what the poor in developing countries pay for fossil fuels hinders them with getting out of poverty. Giving them access to for example their own solar panel removes this cost and gives them opportunities:
I’ve also heard the claim that removing fossil fuels from our energy supply will kill billions multiple times. But I’ve never got an answer from those commenters as to how they got this number. It probably assumes that renewable energy doesn’t work, but it does. It also ignores the other environmental and health benefits we get from not using fossil fuels, that alone will save lives.
Another detail is that fossil fuel is expensive and because of that receives far more subsidies than renewables get. For example the IEA found that “Fossil-fuel subsidies amounted to $523 billion in 2011, around six times the level of support to renewable energy. Currently, 15% of global CO2 emissions receive an incentive of $110 per tonne in the form of fossil-fuel subsidies while only 8% are subject to a carbon price.”
Consensus among scientists is responsible for why Galileo’s theory about Heliocentricity was rejected by main stream science at that time. Even though he was right and the consensus was wrong. Science is blind to consensus. it only respects facts and evidence of which AGW has very little support.
This is completely wrong and shows this commenter doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The resistance Galileo received was due to his ideas challenging religious dogma, it had nothing to do with a scientific consensus. The Roman Inquisition was what shut down Galileo, it’s the reason the Catholic Church apologized over 300 years later for what they did.
Geology and the theory of evolution faced the same religious resistance when scientists realized that the by religion inspired conventional wisdom was wrong. We still see this religious motivated rejection of scientific findings in geology and biology.
Science is indeed blind to commonly held beliefs, but it doesn’t mean it won’t tell you what the conclusion/consensus is based on available evidence. However, ideology can turn a blind eye to facts and evidence. Which is the reason this commenter can claim that there is barely any evidence, despite the scientific literature telling a vastly different story.
Collin Maessen is the founder and editor of Real Skeptic and a proponent of scientific skepticism. For his content he uses the most up to date and best research as possible. Where necessary consulting or collaborating with scientists.
How do people in developing countries rely on the burning of fossil fuels for their very survival? This just sounds wrong. More important, I would have thought, is access to clean drinking water.
I happen to know someone living in a developing country and they are sick to death of constant power outages and their power comes from coal. They would much rather have wind and solar power.
It’s a combination of factors that’s important for someone living in a developing country: healthcare and education access, reliable energy, food, and safe water. Without all these you it’s hard to get yourself out of poverty.
And the reliability of the power grid is a real issue in a lot of developing countries. The infrastructure is simply not there for the type of power grids that we have in the developed countries. The massive investment these type of infrastructures take is the reason why there was a jump towards cellphones, there’s very little infrastructure present for land lines.
That’s why small loans for getting access to their own renewable energy generation is so powerful. It gives people access to electricity which they otherwise wouldn’t have as the infrastructure isn’t there. It’s also the reason why microgrids are a very good solution for developing countries.
Not to mention that a solar powered lamp gives far more light than a kerosene lamp, doesn’t pollute the air in their homes, is safe, and far cheaper to run. They just need a little boost at the start as the initial investment is higher. But it pays back for itself with the savings they have. Those savings make a real difference when you’re poor.
Another problem with the theory that the poor will suffer is that most greens advocate solving the problem in the industrialized countries and do not say that the developing countries should also cut greenhouse gas emissions.
In creases of energy prices inside the rich countries the poor can be helped by redistributing wealth. And less people may be poor because the carbon revenue can be used to lower the taxes on labor. Economy theory tells us that something that is cheaper will be used more (labor) and that something that is more expensive will be used less (energy).
P.S. A confusing typo, I think you want to write: “It also ignores the other environmental and health benefits we get from NOT using fossil fuels, that alone will save lives.”
Fixed the typo.