Does the case of Duesberg show that one has to distrust any consensus, if you believe he has shown that in HIV?AIDS the consensus is wrong?

HIV$AIDS certainly is a very clear example of how the consensus view in a big field naturally acquires artificial attractions – power, position, money, acceptance, collegiality, respect, authority. These artificially build up consensus – the more people join the consensus view, the more advantages they enjoy. Consensus has a network utility. The bigger it is the better it feels.

Tragically, Duesberg already had these perks, but sacrificed them to tell the ungrateful US public, who after all paid for his work with its taxes, what he saw was wrong about the consensus paradigm in HIV?AIDS.

In line with this. your persuasive prescription is to follow the money trail. Suspect the work of scientists who are well paid in money and perks for their views, whether they are conscious of the influence or not. Using this meter, we believe Duesberg, given his huge sacrifice, and we suspect Michaels’ work because of his long history of being paid by big money interests who like his views.

OK, this makes sense, since the money pressure on Duesberg is to be right (useless sacrifice otherwise), while the money pressure on Michaels is to be wrong (or anyway pro-undustry).

But most people who enjoy the consensus advantages are suspect on the same basis. So maybe we should conclude that, ceteris paribus, the minority view is more likely to be right.

In fact, given that all revolutions start with minority support, the view that is most likely to be right then is therefore the later, minority view, rather than the earlier, majority view.

Another reason to believe that HIV$AIDS is wrong!

Still, there are five practical points that can be made against your theory though, we believe.

1) suspicion is not fact, and in the Anglo Saxon legal tradition one is innocent until proved guilty, as it should be. Michaels’ may be a man of steel, unbending in the face of temptation. Like Singer, he may even recant a little, to the chagrin of those who thought they had bought him.

2) is it right to have these kinds of cynical suspicions in the first place? The New York Times does not allow writers for its Travel section to go on junkets (trips paid for by PR agencies or governments) and then report a story on that destination. Is that distrust of their writers valid? Surely if they trust them normally they should also trust them if they go on a junket, say some.

3) what correlation is there between staying squeaky clean and being right? Can’t be 100%. Duesberg might be straight as a gun barrel and still be wrong, and Michaels could be as twisted as a spiral staircase and still be right, or anyway truly believe in what he says.

4) fourth, your point that the climate consensus is the most thoroughly peer reviewed consensus in the history of science seems well taken. Since there seem to be only ten well known scientists who hold out against it, it seems unlikely they are right. But this is exactly what people say about dissenters in HIV?AIDS, isn’t it? Too few of them to be right.

5) it’s not all cakes and ale when you take industry money – there are penalties for being on the wrong side of the consensus in climate science, since it becomes harder to get published (one reason Singer gave for a poor showing in the UN review) and very isolating. Many people will judge you a mule, and suspect your motives.

So in the end it seems to us the only thing that is black and white in all this is the literature and the data and reasoning it records. That’s why this blog uses it as the arbiter of truth.

By the way, we like your shorthand for HIV$AIDS. It inspires us to say, once again, if there is anyone in HIV$AIDS reading this who wishes to make us a large offer to shut up please get in touch immediately. We have mentioned this before, but there has been absolutely no response.

We want to sell out too, Dr Fauci!

Sorry, late night joke in poor taste.

As you know, the consensus that verified these premises to be proven factual based on the scientific evidence was the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Organized by the UN and the World Meteorological Society, the IPCC was the largest and most rigorous peer-reviewed scientific study in history, involving 2000 of the top climate experts from 100 nations. Their 2001 report was described by the Washington Post as “the most comprehensive study on the subject” and as finding “that Earth’s average temperature could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years – the most rapid change in 10 millenia” (Wash. Post, “Scientists issue dire prediction on warming,” Jan. 23, 2001).

Standing against these 2000 scientists forming the consensus are less than 10 scientists, termed “Greenhouse Skeptics”, who are generally well-financed by the fossil fuels industry whose interests (and thus profits) they defend. After 15 years of debunking the simple facts stated above, one of their leaders, Dr. Fred Singer, has conceded that the first three are true. They are reduced to debating how much of global warming is due to fossil fuels, and even to suggesting that the warming will be good for agriculture and should be welcomed. Their major recommendation is that nothing should be done that would interfere with the profits of the oil and coal industry.

This is not an instance of a brave, truth-oriented, public spirited minority standing up to power and money. On the contrary, it’s just another example of some paid-off stooges of the powerful, wealthy vested interests asserting its agenda for maximum profits. Admittedly, the rewards provided may program such scientists to believe in their cause.

A similar scientific minority was financed by the tobacco industry when evidence began to accumulate for its harmful effects. Two eminent lung surgeons (Drs. Garland and MacDonald), both smokers, were paid by tobacco companies to appear in ads defending cigarettes. One them claimed, “A pack a day keeps lung cancer away.” (He later died of the disease.)

This is completely different from the situation in HIV$AIDS, where both the consensus and the wealth and power of both industry and government are all on one side. In such a situation, one must respect the genuine motives of a Prof. Duesberg who will stand up for what he believes is true despite the costs inflicted by the reigning interests. A comparable example in climate science is Dr. James Hansen, Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies of NASA, who has defied attempts by the administration to “muzzle him” from speaking out on the reality and peril of the global warming.