Being Conned out of Your Senses

Being Conned out of Your Senses

by John Loeffler, Colorado Christian News
November 29, 1996

Craving anesthetic from reality, I flopped down to watch Bill Nye the Science Guy — PBS’s high-tech attempt at scientific whole language. I must admit liking the highly creative show, even though it has politically-correct glop and environmental hysteria wrapped around otherwise accurate science. Bill’s favorite expression seems to be “most scientists believe,” followed by environmental myth.

Just his use of the word “believe” should trigger red flags for any scientifically-oriented individual. After all, “science” is supposed to be a system of proving facts about the universe and “belief” involves something religious. That’s how opponents argue against teaching creationism as a viable alternative to evolution in state-run schools. Creationism is a matter of belief and evolution is sound science. So they say.

Yet here we find Bill Nye the publicly-funded science guy telling us that science is a matter of “belief.” O.K., which one is it? “Most scientists this…” and “..most scientists that.” Who cares? Most scientists once scoffed at the idea that bacteria caused disease. That didn’t stop the bacteria who happily went on killing people. The real issue is whether science has conclusively proven or disproven a hypothesis.

Much sky-is-falling environmental hysteria is based on unproven allegations about what “most scientists believe” rather than hard scientific fact. Evidence to the contrary is systematically ignored and dissenting scientists are frequently shouted down or denied funding to develop contrary evidence. Bill Nye is just symptomatic of a method of pushing agendas called “consensus.”

The public definition of consensus would seem to be a belief or course of action everyone has agreed upon. In reality, consensus involves a Hegelian dialectic developed by change agent educators who specialize in pushing agendas and minimizing opposition. You can get a peek at this process in in government publications such as guides for change agents, the Goals 2000 Community Action Toolkit, etc. Note that education change agents are told to lie if necessary. Nice that your government approves of educators lying to you, isn’t it?

Understanding the consensus process provides answers to the puzzlement people experience when something is rammed through under their noses at public meetings. It starts with an undisclosed pre-determined outcome on the part of those pushing an agenda and usually controlling the meeting. Everyone is allowed to speak so all get the warm fuzzy that their views have been heard. Non-conforming ideas are minimized and those following the “pre-determined outcome” are emphasized. When all is done, the chairperson announces that a “consensus” has been achieved and tells everyone what it is. The report is written up, taking care to eliminate dissenting views and giving the impression that everyone reached this “outcome” together. The opposition is left head-scratching and wondering where they lost control.

Consensus is used in government, science labs, especially schools to keep parents from meddling in elitist visions for education and other politically correct establishments every day. The United Nations employs it widely in treaty-making. It is designed to thwart opposition while giving the appearance of democratic process.

Just one recent example came from the United-Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC summary report was approved by attending environmental scientists, many of whom said there was no long-term global warming — which indeed much data corroborate — that current temperature fluctuations are within historical norms and that there is no concrete evidence of mankind’s activity affecting global climate — i.e. no global warming. Quite a jump from the “most scientists believe the sky is falling” heard every day.

When the report was published, numerous pages had been deliberately tampered with. All dissenting views and evidence been systematically removed giving the impression that scientists were in agreement that global warming was upon us. The dissenting scientists were furious at the blatant unscientific fraud and their protest erupted into the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. They had been “consensed” and they didn’t like it.

Now you have an idea of how the process works so you can recognize it when it happens to you. Remember that consensus has two parts to it: “Con” and “Senses.” When consensus is under way, you are being conned to take leave of your senses.


Want more resources on these topics? Here are some previous programs you might find interesting:
Share this post:

Steel on Steel is supported by listeners like you! If you enjoy the free shows and want to help keep this content available for future listeners, you can make a donation here: