Did Tyson Know What He Was Doing?
Interesting incident from a Cosmos episode; Sisters of the Sun.
In this episode, Tyson showcases the women of astrophysics, those women at Harvard who worked for Pickering in classifying stars; they were actually called "computers."
In Cosmos, Tyson tells the story of Cecilia Payne whose doctoral thesis, "Stellar Atmospheres, A Contribution to the Observational Study of High Temperature in the Reversing Layers of Stars," correctly identifies the composition of stars.
At the time, the accepted wisdom - the "consensus," if you will - was that the composition of stars was similar to that of Earth. Payne concluded that this was not so; that hydrogen, for example, was a million times more abundant.
When she submitted her paper to Henry Russell, an astronomer of note at Princeton, he convinced her to not make such a conclusion, so she succumbed to popular pressure - again, the "consensus" - and modified her paper accordingly, admitting that something must be wrong with her analysis.
However, the fact is, Payne was right and the consensus was wrong. But, because the consensus was popular, science accepted it as the Truth.
Where am I going with this?
Well, from my use of the word, "consensus," it might be obvious to some. But, to be clear, I am pointing a finger at the "consensus" of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming - or, climate change, take yer pick.
We have "climate change" rammed down our throats because of the hallowed "consensus." Not because of any PROOFS, but merely because it's popular.
Those who question the validity of this popularity are shunned, ridiculed, ostracized, even called to be killed.
Because those who support man-made "climate change" can prove what they claim?
Not in the least.
Because it's "popular;" there's a "consensus." Skepticism, the foundation of science, is ignored.
Well, as the story of Cecilia Payne demonstrates, just because there's "consensus," doesn't mean it's right.