by AL Whitney (C) copyround 2014
Permission is granted for redistribution if linked to original and the AntiCorruption Society is acknowledged
To understand the significance of the National Academy of Science’s admission, one simply has to take a close look at the Delphi method of consensus – developed by the private RAND Corporation – and consider whose interests the RAND Corporation was created to serve.
The Delphi method
The Delphi method was developed by the RAND Corporation, the Robber Baron’s private think tank.
The Delphi method is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts. [Item # 1] The experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. [Item 2] After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary [Item #3] of the experts’ forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. [Item #4] It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the “correct” answer. Finally, the process is stopped after a pre-defined stop criterion (e.g. number of rounds, achievement of consensus, stability of results) and the mean or median scores of the final rounds determine the results. [Item #5]
Delphi is based on the principle that forecasts (or decisions) from a structured group of individuals [Item #6] are more accurate than those from unstructured groups. The technique can also be adapted for use in face-to-face meetings, and is then called mini-Delphi or Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE). Delphi has been widely used for business forecasting and has certain advantages over another structured forecasting approach, prediction markets.
Who selects the panel of experts? By determining who is an “expert” and by cherry-picking those so-called experts, the final result can be easily rigged.
Those who write the questionnaires can also determine the outcome. It is soooo easy to frame questions that would support your premise and avoid ones that would expose it as faulty.
Of course the hand picked facilitator, writes the anonymous summary. This means that the participants are not permitted to see the response of the other so-called experts. The facilitator is free to screen out any responses that don’t support his/her goal and the attendees wouldn’t even know. He/she can then ‘spin’ the summary any way he/she wishes.
The ‘experts’ are encouraged to change their position to align with others – that may or may not be as knowledgeable as they are. This is called ‘group think’. This stage does not include an open discussion, which could increase the general knowledge of the participants, and might convince the group to support an altogether different conclusion.
” . . . the process is stopped after a pre-defined stop criterion”! This method allows for the most knowledgeable experts to be silenced and their opinions overridden by the majority of less knowledgeable experts. And, mean or median results [math scores] can be used to create the illusion of “consensus”, with the input and opinions of the most knowledgeable buried in the process.
To convince the public and policymakers that this process produced a valid conclusion/consensus, those that invited or defined the “structured group” generally attach all of the names of the participants to the final report. The inclusion of their names and credentials makes it appear that ‘experts’ agreed with the conclusion . . . and therefore the artificially crafted “consensus” report can be falsely promoted as science-based.
By controlling the following factors, a structured group can be hand-picked and manipulated into seemingly supporting faulty ‘consensus science’:
- final scores
- final report
This is the strategy that the National Academy of Science admit they use to create reports and promote whatever garbage they wish as being science-based. One of the most important scientific frauds ever created via the Delphi Technique is CO2 Global warming. Two great efforts to expose how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was manipulated by the Delphi Technique are:
- The Great Global Warming Swindle – documentary free online
- Insider Admits that environmental orgs never reviewed CO2 global warming theory!