Future prospects - Ice Ages and Interglacials: Measurements, Interpretation, and Models - page 320

whelming and longstanding. Public trust in science has always been high, and
political organizations have long sought to improve their own credibility by
associating their goals with 'science'—even if this involves misrepresenting the
science.''

The emergence of the consensus as the essence of reality in science has
replaced scientific skepticism, and ''simulation and programs have replaced theory
and observation, where Government largely determines the nature of scientific
activity.'' As Lindzen (2008) emphasized, ''the bulk of the educated public is
unable to follow scientific arguments; 'knowing' that all scientists agree relieves
them of any need to do so.'' Taking issue with the consensus ''serves as a warning
to scientists that the topic at issue is a bit of a minefield that they would do well
to avoid.''
There are a number of scientific topics of great interest that are not amenable
to resolution because of their complexity and because they deal with phenomena
not accessible to current measurements. Benestad (2005) discussed the scientific
method which requires that (1) hypotheses can be proven wrong (if they are
wrong), (2) that they are based on objective tests, and (3) that the results must be
repeatable. Most work in climatology and almost all work in paleoclimatology fail
this test. Incidentally, so does almost all the work on the search for life in the
solar system. There are scientific questions that are beyond our ability to answer.
In such instances, scientists do not seem to be able to shrug their shoulders
and admit that they just don't know the answers. They formulate hypotheses and
a consensus develops around the most favored one. The consensus acquires
legitimacy in proportion to the number and prominence of the scientists who
subscribe to it. As the consensus becomes firmly imbedded in the culture, it

acquires the respect usually accorded to fact. As Crichton (2003) said:

''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 are relevant are reproducible results. 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.''

Crichton (2003) provided several historical examples of scientific consensus
gone wrong. Three examples where an unwarranted consensus currently prevails
in science are:

(1) The belief that given liquid water, CO 2 , and other basic chemicals for a few
hundred million years life will evolve on any planet. This in turn has led to the
investment of many billions of dollars by NASA in the search for life on Mars
and elsewhere in the solar system and beyond. What is more, this policy has