"Climate skeptics" are a thing of the past?
No. That's why we're here.
Bogus #ClimateSkepticism comes in various flavors. Many so-called skeptics are indeed cranks but others come in the passive form, their basis of doubt or disbelief mired in innocent ignorance.
Innocent ignorance can be fostered, cultivated-- and that's exactly what's happened over the course of decades in connection with #ScientificConsensus on #ClimateChange.
Learn more:
86.6% of the surveyed astrobiologists responded either “agree” or “strongly agree” that it’s likely that extraterrestrial life (of at least a basic kind) exists somewhere in the universe. Read Full Article #ExtraterrestrialLife #Astrobiology #LifeInTheUniverse #SpaceResearch #ScientificConsensus
"Scientists and those who champion them should never close ranks against empirical challenge and criticism."
George Monbiot on how criticism of the framing of CFS/ME as a psychiatric illness was portrayed as abusive to delegitimise patient concerns.
What's a bit of a shame is that people with the "inside baseball" perspective constantly refer to consensus, without realizing that in common parlance it doesn't mean what's intended to be communicated. Scientific consensus isn't the same as consensus on what pizza to buy, a pitfall.
We (@SkepticalScience) took a stab at filling in this gap, because a widely accessible and reasonably complete explanation wasn't available.
#ScientificConsensus
https://skepticalscience.com/publishing-a-long-overdue-explainer-about-a-scientific-consensus.html
Recently, we happened upon a neat and detailed article, explaining what a scientific consensus is. This made us realize, that - even though we have a lot of material about the consensus - we were lacking an explainer about what a scientific consensus actually is. We have now remedied this and created a page with an explainer and an accompanying glossary entry which will point our readers towards that page with a small pop-up-box whenever they hover the cursor over the word “consensus” in an article or rebuttal on Skeptical Science. The full text is available below with the sections about the knowledge-based consensus based on the script of Peter Jacob's related lecture in week 1 of Denial101x.
This paper a perfect example of #consilience !
[Even more powerful than #ScientificConsensus.]
#ScientificConsensus with Dr John Cook
Misconceptions about consensus in science abound (and are sometimes encouraged). It it a popularity contest? Mindless conformity? If not those, what? To answer these and many other questions, Melanie Trecek-King - who runs the "Thinking is Power" website - talked with John Cook about the scientific consensus in general and about his study finding 97% consensus about human-cased climate change in particular.
#ClimateCognition
https://skepticalscience.com/conversation-about-the-scientific-consensus.html?utm-source=mastodon&utm-campaign=socialnetworks&utm-term=sks
There are so many misconceptions about consensus in science: What is a consensus? Does science work via consensus? To answer these and many other questions, Melanie Trecek-King - who runs the 'Thinking is Power' website - talked with John Cook about the scientific consensus in general and about his study finding 97% consensus about human-cased climate change in particular.
It matters who does science
A monolithic group of scientists will bring many of the same preconceived notions to their work. But a group of many backgrounds will bring different points of view that decrease the chance that one prevailing set of views will bias the outcome. This means that scientific consensus can be reached faster and with greater reliability. It also means that the applications and implications will be more just for all.
#Science #ScientificConsensus #DiversityinScience #Diversity
#TheSwirl: a condition in which certainty is continually contested, divided, and multiplied. #Monsanto has funded agroscience departments and #research institutes and the #agrochemical #industry has blurred “the lines between reliable and biased #science” in such a way that “makes it impossible to either discredit or believe the #ScientificConsensus” on #glyphosates like #Roundup.
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/monsanto-and-the-battle-over-scientific-consensus/
Agree with this author: it's maddening.
‘Both-Sidesing the Climate Story’
#ColumbiaJournalismReview #KylePope
#ClimateJustice #ClimateChange
“It is maddening that, this far into the #ClimateCrisis, #news outlets continue to dither as to whether a single #weather event is related to the now-undeniable, violent changes in Earth’s weather. …
“The overwhelming #ScientificConsensus is that Earth is #warming, that man-made causes are to blame, and that one result is more extreme weather precisely like what we’ve seen this week on the #WestCoast. And yet the search for definitive causation—for hard proof that global shifts in climate produced a single event in one corner of one town—has become an odious tendency among journalists looking to create tension when there is none.”
https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/california_storms_climate_crisis_eric_sorensen.php
<p>The recent storms in California have been tragic, killing at least nineteen people and soaking nearly the entire state, including cities, such as Palm Springs, that are more used to drought. But is climate change driving it? It is maddening that, this far into the climate crisis, news outlets continue to dither as to whether […]</p>
Gay Curmudgeon
Skeptical Science
🌎 Experiencia interdimensional
Matt Hodgkinson
Doug Bostrom
Javier Díaz-Nido
Gladwyn d’Souza
H2O