tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1261791748350151795.post4955327644137526613..comments2023-10-15T23:14:44.215-07:00Comments on The Science Unicorn: The problem with consensusFaith Kearnshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14318125337357708742noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1261791748350151795.post-633421957583885992015-06-18T16:28:54.955-07:002015-06-18T16:28:54.955-07:00The consensus is real. That is to say that most of...The consensus is real. That is to say that most of the topics treated as real issues in the blog science world are either not open questions or not important. This certainly applies to most of the issues Otter raises, except where the point is simply wrong.<br /><br />That said, there is a real question of how one defines "consensus" and how one defines "publication" or "expertise"; an outsider trying to confirm the consensus will obtain different results depending on where they set the boundaries. So ANY attempt along these lines can be criticized.<br /><br />But there's also the experience of people working in the field to contend with. Almost nobody with any chops in physical climatology doubts that the climate of the near future is going to be drastically different from the climate of the recent past. <br /><br />It's like doctors arguing whether a genuinely sick patient has real pain or is malingering. They may have to do that in some cases. But if you're the patient, you know the pain is real.<br /><br />Now as to whether it's an effective messaging tool, I think there's evidence that it is, if it's done convincingly. I totally agree with the parent posting about nuance; the scientific community should not be cherry picking evidence.<br /><br />But there really isn't any scientific doubt that CO2 is accumulating due to human activity, that climate is going to change drastically as a result if we don't change our ways soon, that the changes are beyond marginally detectable as they were a mere decade ago, and that most of the changes are in line with expectations.<br /><br />I think that agreement should matter to an informed and nuanced conversation about what to do about it. But I like the plea for nuance nonetheless.<br /><br />Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1261791748350151795.post-39646301793488453172015-06-18T14:47:41.649-07:002015-06-18T14:47:41.649-07:00The point of mentioning consensus is to emphasize ...The point of mentioning consensus is to emphasize that the crackpot outliers are crackpots & liars.<br /><br />If your conflict lens can't see that the conflict is between science and paid liars, smash it.Downpuppyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10312490198813632190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1261791748350151795.post-81328338367086803032015-06-11T01:57:54.431-07:002015-06-11T01:57:54.431-07:00I agree. They should not be focusing upon consensu...I agree. They should not be focusing upon consensus, especially when a review of what members of various scientific groups actually think varies wildly from 'consensus' http://kajm.deviantart.com/art/About-those-pro-AGW-scientific-organizations-501561189<br /><br />Instead, they should be focusing on explaining why hurricanes and tornados have decreased over the past decade; why coral reefs are not only handily recovering but thriving, even in waters considered acidic; why the stratosphere has been warming the last 10 years instead of cooling, as the theory predicted, and so on, and so forth.Otterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803844140223954870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1261791748350151795.post-20936648666052504032015-03-02T15:37:46.056-08:002015-03-02T15:37:46.056-08:00Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with climate...Just to be clear, I'm not arguing with climate change research, just the use of scientific consensus as a tool to sway public opinion in what I increasingly view as an intractable conflict. In the case of intractable conflict, focusing on consensus just seems to create further polarization.Faith Kearnshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14318125337357708742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1261791748350151795.post-42776012533366819062015-03-02T06:40:56.248-08:002015-03-02T06:40:56.248-08:00Thanks for this. Climate science definitely suffe...Thanks for this. Climate science definitely suffers from over-simplification with most of the real-life examples being simply wrong e.g. arctic warming, polar bears, past temperatures, predicted IPCC surface temps, etc. <br /><br />The science is completely damaged by scientists moving on and ignoring the fact that they got it wrong. There's still an energy budget argument they can make, but there's no conclusive evidence either for or against. anngiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08182464335200536996noreply@blogger.com