My Letter to Reason

I wrote the following in response to this (but the site did not accept my post, not sure why):

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/27/whos-more-anti-science-republicans-or-de

There's a world of difference in disagreeing with the significance of the opinions of scientists (aka consensus) and disagreeing with science.  The scientific method of searching for truth depends not a whit on consensus.  There is either experimentation testing and proving/rejecting hypothesis, or there is not.  If consensus was science, the world would still be flat and the earth would be the center of the universe.  Put another way - if a million scientists vote for gravity and 1 does not, does that mean there's no gravity? 

It is in fact more scientific to reject consensus as a surrogate for "science" than it is to accept same.  The point of science is the opposite of consensus - reject opinion, trust only data.  The scientific method demands that we reject the opinions of scientists, as the method assumes a scientist’s opinion is as likely to be distorted by human frailty as is any human’s. 

“Scientists" should not pretend it is "scientific" to deal in consensus.  What would prove the outlandish conjecture that human activity is warming the planet is a model that could accurately predict temperature increases – again, the problem for the “believers” is that there is no such model.  The fact that the term consensus is used proves all one need know about the scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming – which is that there is none.