Meaning: The quote provided by Doug Hoffman, a scientist, reflects a perspective on the issue of climate change and the reliance on scientific consensus as opposed to empirical evidence. The quote suggests that there have been instances where climate change pronouncements have been misleading due to data errors that were detected by external observers who are not affiliated with the United Nations (UN), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), or the peer-reviewed scientific community.

Hoffman's statement raises important questions about the process of scientific inquiry and the role of consensus in shaping public understanding and policy decisions related to climate change. The quote implies that there may be a tendency to prioritize consensus over factual accuracy in the discourse surrounding climate change, and that this may lead to errors that can have significant implications for public perception and policy-making.

The mention of "data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers" highlights the significance of independent scrutiny and verification in scientific research. It suggests that external observers, who are not tied to the established institutions and processes of climate science, have played a critical role in identifying inaccuracies and errors in the data that underpins climate change pronouncements. This raises questions about the reliability and robustness of the data and research that informs our understanding of climate change.

Hoffman's critique of "consensus science" versus "scientific fact" touches on a broader debate within the scientific community about the balance between consensus and empirical evidence. While consensus can be a powerful indicator of the prevailing understanding within a scientific field, it is not a substitute for rigorous empirical research and verification. The quote suggests that the reliance on consensus may lead to a situation where scientific arguments are based more on agreement among experts rather than on the actual evidence and data.

It is important to note that the quote does not provide specific examples of the alleged data errors or the context in which they occurred. Without specific instances or evidence to support these claims, it is challenging to fully assess the validity of the assertions made in the quote. However, the broader issue of data integrity and the role of consensus in climate change science is a topic of ongoing discussion and scrutiny within the scientific community.

In recent years, there have been high-profile controversies related to climate change research, including incidents where errors or misinterpretations in data have led to public skepticism and criticism of the scientific consensus. These incidents underscore the importance of transparency, accountability, and robust peer review processes in climate science.

The quote by Doug Hoffman invites critical reflection on the complexities of climate change research and the communication of scientific findings to the public and policymakers. It highlights the need for ongoing scrutiny and verification of climate data and the importance of maintaining a balance between consensus-based understanding and empirical evidence in shaping our response to the challenges of climate change.

In conclusion, Doug Hoffman's quote raises important questions about the role of consensus and scientific fact in the discourse surrounding climate change. While the specific examples of data errors are not provided, the quote invites consideration of the broader issues related to data integrity, consensus science, and the communication of climate change research to the public. It underscores the ongoing need for transparency, scrutiny, and robust scientific inquiry in addressing the complex and urgent challenges posed by climate change.