Scientific consensus: Everything hurts when agreement outweighs evidence

You might think that the food pyramid is a scientific fact and the result of the work of scientists without personal interest who methodically scrutinized science to determine which diet is healthiest for humans. However, this is not true. That food pyramid was not a product of science, but of politics. Namely, the seed of the pyramid was sown in the 1950s in the USA, during a significant increase in heart disease cases, for which scientists blamed saturated fats, while neglecting other factors, such as smoking, which was also on the rise at that time. How much they neglected it is shown by the fact that doctors at that time actually advocated smoking.

Manipulation about fats

Here enters American psychologist Ancel Keys, who was the first to promote the theory of saturated fats as the main cause of heart disease. He manipulated data to confirm his theory and used political power to silence anyone who might want to oppose that theory. Keys was also a co-author of the ‘Minnesota Coronary Survey’, which he hoped would confirm his thesis and the link between saturated fats and heart disease; the study included nine thousand participants. Although Keys hoped to confirm his theory, the ‘Minnesota Coronary Survey’ did not go as planned. The research did not reveal that saturated fats were harmful, which may explain why the first results were published only in 1989, even though the study was completed back in 1978. It turned out that replacing animal or saturated fats with vegetable oil does not reduce the risk of heart disease. For reasons that have never been explained, and which seem quite obvious, Keys’ name was not in the final publication of the study despite being one of the two main co-researchers. The other main co-researcher, Ivan Frantz, who was also the main author of the final paper, was interviewed before his death by science journalist Gary Taubes. When asked why they delayed the publication of the results for sixteen years, he replied: – We were so disappointed with how they turned out.

It is clear that this essentially comes down to cover-up, hiding unpleasant results, which is behavior unworthy of a true scientist. As the famous physicist Richard Feynman said, it does not matter how beautiful your theory is, it does not matter how smart you are; if it does not agree with the experiment, it is wrong.

We are blockheads

In science, there is no such thing as absolute consensus, although many today assure us otherwise. Any scientific topic where consensus prevails may not hold water. In principle, the one who has a different idea or information that can topple the paradigm can also be right.

Scientific consensus is often perceived as the final truth in the scientific community, but it is an agreement among most experts on a scientific issue based on available data. However, the history of science shows that consensus is not always synonymous with truth, but can be the result of political, social, or economic pressures. The question arises when consensus outweighs real evidence and why there is even consensus in science when skepticism and openness to new evidence should dominate it.

—

—

The problem is that today anyone who comes up with a new idea or theory related to issues where consensus prevails is usually ridiculed, rejected, labeled as ‘blockhead’, and, most importantly, if they are a scientist, their funding is abruptly cut off. So many do not rock the boat.

Politics is…

The biggest problem is actually the same one that existed in the 1950s, which is the intertwining of politics and science, which should not exist. However, this connection is extremely strong, especially in areas that directly affect society, such as health, the environment, technology, and the economy. This connection is best reflected in the aforementioned funding of scientists and research. Unfortunately, most scientists are in some collusion with states and governments, whether it is about funding or working for state agencies and institutions, and that fact alone can call their scientific research into question. Political decisions often determine which projects will be funded and which will not, so governments allocate funds for research based on their political goals, which can affect the direction of scientific research. For example, research on climate or health may be influenced by governments that want to promote certain economic interests or ideologies, which is indeed happening. Also, political bodies often use scientific data to make legal regulations and guidelines such as dietary guidelines, environmental laws, or medical standards. However, these guidelines can be distorted due to political pressures or lobbying from various interest groups. Which is indeed happening.

There are also lobbying and pressures from corporations and various interest groups that exploit politics to influence scientific guidelines or public policies. This happened, for example, in the case of the food pyramid, where industries related to the production of grains and vegetable oils influenced dietary guidelines. And this continues to happen.

Science or dogma

Why is there even consensus in science when that field should be exact? The answer is that scientific consensus actually facilitates decision-making at the political level, allowing governments to act accordingly. However, there are several reasons why consensus in science is problematic. The first is politics. When political or economic forces have an interest in a certain scientific stance, consensus can be imposed without sufficient evidence. For example, dietary guidelines that promoted grain intake and reduced fat intake were driven by excess grain stocks in the USA, not just scientific evidence. It is also problematic that policymakers often want clear and unambiguous answers, while science rarely offers simple answers. Because of this, scientific consensus can provide a false sense of security, and complexity and uncertainty are often ignored.

—

—

This is best illustrated by the story of our academician Vladimir Paar, who, at a climate forum in Budapest many years ago, as he says, was shocked by what he saw.

– The information they provided was one-sided. Their thesis was that the climate on Earth is constant and that humans are the main cause of the problem. They showed a graph of temperature changes over the last eight thousand years that favored them. When I asked why they did not show the two thousand years before that, panic ensued because the temperature had dropped by eight degrees then, and there were no people. The response from the ‘experts’ was this: – If we showed that to the politicians, we would only confuse them – Paar recounted.

General climate decision

Today, perhaps the strongest consensus is the climate one, which is already affecting people’s lives; if it continues in that direction, the impact will be even greater. And it is not a question of whether the climate is changing. It has always changed and will continue to do so regardless of humans, whose impact on change is minimal.

– Humans on this planet are just a small part of the carbon dioxide cycle. If we take into account what oceans, volcanoes, and forest fires emit, we are a speck in the whole story – said Korado Korlević in his show ‘Explora’.

Key discoveries in climate science are not credited to climatologists. There are two key ones: the first is the discovery of the greenhouse effect, which is 19th-century physics. It was discovered by Swedish physicist Svante Arrhenius, who ‘calculated by foot’ that if CO₂ increased by fifty percent, the temperature would rise by about three degrees Celsius. Today, this has also been confirmed by supercomputers. The second major discovery is that of Milutin Milanković, a builder known for the so-called Milanković cycles. In the 1930s, this scientist calculated how changes in the Earth’s trajectory, axial tilt, and precession of its axis affect the climate. He obtained results showing that this leads to long ice ages and major warming periods.

Blame for changes

Today, science has precise data on how temperatures and CO₂ levels on Earth have changed over the last million years; we have them thanks to Antarctic ice. That curve shows that there is no evidence that CO₂ plays any role in warming because it does not rise exponentially. When we look at Milanković cycles and ice ages, we see an increase in carbon dioxide levels during ice ages, but also during major warming periods, and there were no humans then, so it remains unclear why we are today the main culprits for ‘climate change’. The past seems to be conveniently forgotten. Otherwise, if you think Milanković was some charlatan, it should be noted that his cycles are on the list of the hundred greatest scientific discoveries about planet Earth in all history, and that is on the list of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington. But today, that data is dismissed, neglected, and not mentioned. Why, ask politics and world leaders.

—

—

This story has gone so far that now even companies that are ecological villains in their business talk about climate protection. For example, oil companies that talk about their ecological contribution, as well as many that became interested in climate only when incentives started coming in. And there are also world organizations that push this narrative in which humans are to blame, which is why they must bear some consequences. Thus, it is already widely discussed about a personal carbon footprint that may be measured in the near future, which will be a repressive story in itself. Also, the fear that has been sown affects some significantly, so we increasingly see and hear, for example, that for the climate, it is best that we do not have children. Yes, and that is being shoved in people’s faces today – because we are to blame, the carbon footprint is large, children amplify it, etc. And all this ultimately leads to that little one who declares in the main Zagreb square that for him, the best would be a child-free world. Perhaps his mother should have told him that about twenty years ago.