In Earth science (my own area of interest), the ruling paradigm (plate tectonics) is unashamedly based on a series of assumptions. yet
most will deny this and regard those assumptions as facts, and label anyone who says otherwise ‘crank’. It seems to me that far more
than politics ( in which there are at least buttons that can be pushed that will allow different views to be aired — albeit ones not based in
fact) , the behemoth of Science Consensus has got that base covered. It brooks no dissent, and the system of peer review is set up to
make sure of it:- (quote) ….”The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of
discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer
review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But
we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant,
occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong”. (Google or a wordstring) But nobody seriously doubts our ‘knights in
white satin’, do they? ..with their continual cry for “More research is needed”? The public probably regards this as money well spent,
but poke them (scientists) with a fact and see what happens. Craig Venter remarks: “I think the way science is conducted around the
world, we probably waste over 90% of the money, …” but how soon is this forgotten or disregarded against the myth of scientific
truth-telling?. The ‘emails’ too turn out to be just a mote in the eye of Global Warming. And who cares anyway? With a finger on the
real issue here even the Seychelles are opportunisitically trying to cash in on it to get funding to build concrete walls all around their
beautiful tourist islands (…construction maybe being not so much the issue as the funding.)

In ten years of my own internet come-ons to debate the issues in Earth science, from wheedling, through ridicule, to bullish agression,
and with about two (or maybe three) execptions (maybe), not once has there been any uptake of those points at issue on grounds of fact
- only ad hominems and ‘crank-sport’. Why bother? Well I regard it as a mirror, reflecting exactly your point:- That the ones most
likely to be the most informed in matters of fact are the ones least likely to shift their views. For my part, as one accused of being ‘crank’
and spreading disinformation, it’s been an experience I wouldn’t have missed for quids, as an object lesson on many levels.
Tweedledum and Tweedledee, .. Tweedledee had a spruiker in his Minster of Spin:- …”It’s not me telling lies, it’s you who’s not getting
the big picture..” (It’s how it’s done, I guess, if you can – (spin). Tweedledum (Bush) had his own appeal – inarticulate confabulations
that people could take to mean anything they wanted. Both knew what all politicians massaging the ‘Art of the Possible’ do, that facts
pale in the face of belief. And science, with its goal of monolithic consensus proves exactly that. Which is I think what you are saying.
I’m just adding, “..and nowhere is this more true than in the area of career science.” Which is another caution to the environmetally
challenged flower of democracy.

Thanks for your piece.