I could make a slingshot that could hit the broad side of a barn from twenty feet away. To test it’s accuracy, I could travel all over the country and shoot a number of barns. Other slingshot experts could follow me around to affirm my results and we could have a consensus that my slingshot was accurate. I could advertize it as being accurate and that there is a consensus among slingshot enthusiasts that my data is correct. Even though hitting the broad side of a barn has no value for hunting, I could still sell it as an accurate weapon. The term accuracy is completely dependent on the agenda of the person collecting the data. Consensus is the same. It depends on having the same parameters as the person collecting the data.

Precision is the word used for how tight the parameters are concerning the subject we are examining. It is the size of the bulls eye. To make slingshot that can hit a bug from twenty feet away would take more of a precise instrument. Variables would have to be eliminated to always hit a bug at that distance such as using a steel ball of a certain weight and pulling back a certain distance, lining up sights etc. All the slingshots would have to be designed exactly the same. The claim to accuracy would be confined to hitting bugs at twenty feet. Both slingshots can be considered accurate but only one would be of value for hunting.

This is the game played by science today. Forensic data from millions of years or even decades are not precise enough to make judgment calls about the future. We can’t accurately predict hurricane seasons. We can’t accurately predict next week’s weather. But wait; what do we mean by accurate? Plus or minus ten degrees; rain; snow? We set the parameters. But to claim to know next Wednesday’s noon weather within a half a degree would be a gamble and we would rightly say a person who was able to do it only made a lucky guess. We know the variables are too great. This is how the climate change debate goes: Imprecise forensic data modeled in computers (to overlook variables) presented to make precise predictions. But in reality that even with a consensus among the collectors, the conclusions are nothing more than broad agenda based guesses.