The Cost of Consensus

When it comes to global warming, why do we stand against the popular flow? One of the main reasons is the enormous price of pursuing so called green policies. All of these policies are based on the assumption that climate change is manmade; mankind broke the climate, therefore it is our responsibility to fix it. But what happens if this underlying foundation for these expensive policies is wrong? Currently anthropogenic global warming is nothing more than a hypothesis (a very popular hypothesis at that), not the scientifically proven theory many warmists would have you believe. Just because a lot of scientists like a hypothesis it doesn’t mean it is suddenly a theory.

It would be a tragedy if the massive amount of effort and money required to enact these green polices was ultimately wasted because the underlying assumption for their necessity was faulty. This is especially true when you consider the people who would be paying the biggest price are the world’s poor.

Ultimately science is not determined by a consensus of leading scientists, it is ultimately determined by science fact. If science was determined by consensus Galileo would have been wrong, and the sun would have orbited around the earth. Being in the minority is not easy, and many times the majority will mock, belittle, and persecute those who do not toe the line.