July 27, 2021

Nonscientists have a quip for justifying their incompetent propaganda on global warming. They say the consensus of scientists agrees with them. It's not true. They manufactured a fake consensus of the social view of science and prevented criticism of it. They brought incompetent science to the surface and got real scientists fired to promote their ignorant assumptions.

Consensus is that way. It is used as a tool for the promotion of fraud. Consensus has no place in a rational social order. It's the same as hearsay, gossip and scandal. Using consensus as a force to remove rationality from a subject should expose it as the corruption that it is. But corrupters view their corruptness as a sign of superiority, because it gets them where they want to be, which is arbitrating realities on the basis of their ignorance.

It's really strange that the persons who know the least about science are the most determined to tell us something about science. The reason it happens is because they don't know how much complexity they are defying.

Complexities in science need to be described, not imposed. If not described, there is no possibility of getting them right. It would be like an engineer designing without mathematics. Yet know-nothings describe nothing in imposing their ignorance onto society.

One of the main things wrong with consensus is the absence of everything that is needed for validity, which includes evidence, explanation, relationship to related realities and differentiation of right from wrong. Consensus on corruption is not distinguishable from consensus on fact, because there are no qualifying characteristics for consensus.

For these reasons corrupters use consensus as a major tool for promoting corruption. How then could anyone use consensus for promoting fact? How do you tell the difference? One way to tell the difference is that rational persons have nothing to do with consensus; so those who do are promoting corruption.

One of the implications of consensus is that everything and everyone is perfect except the target persons whom consensus is being imposed upon. Corrupters like that implication; rational persons do not.

Most basically, existence is dependent upon accountability. There needs to be a method of determining correctness, or incorrectness will run rampant. Incorrectness will be deliberate as well as accidental without verification. That's why rational persons provide enough information for other persons to decide for themselves. Consensus prevents that process from occurring, as it is an undefinable void. Do you go looking for all of the persons involved to determine what they base their conclusions upon? No other methodology for verification is possible with consensus.

Therefore, consensus is a method of eliminating opposing realities. Truth does not oppose other realities; it increases through the interaction of realities. The only motive for eliminating opposing realities is to promote corruption.

So consensus is a corruption used to impose corruption. Anyone who doesn't know that is not capable of determining correctness.

Voting is nothing resembling consensus, as it is not a reality promoting mechanism but a political mechanism. Politics is different from everything else in that it must resolve unresolvable disputes which include values. Everywhere else, values must be removed from objective realities in solving problems through rationality.