What does this say about the meaning of consensus? Is consensus something that simply emerges independently in the minds of each scientist? Or, is it an artifact of the university system itself?
I’m sure it’s a bit of both and that’s why you don’t take seriously many scientists until their research has been rigorously peer-reviewed by a large number of other scientists so that a cog in their research can be found. If studies hold up after proper peer-review then we can make a reasonable assumption that the studies have value and can be used as precedent. That’s also very much how open source software works and that’s why openness and transparency is the best disinfectant to institutionalized decision-making.
That’s why climate scientists are continuing to study climate change. They all haven’t stopped and said it’s all settled and they know exactly how climate change is going to specifically affect the weather, sea levels, droughts, ice melt, etc.
The lie that climate change/impact deniers often propagate is that climate scientists refuse to even discuss climate change and global warning from a critical point of view anymore when that’s the furthest from the truth. There is ongoing, widespread research from climate scientists all over the world to continue to study climate change and bring new models forward for peer review.
On the other hand, you have fringe elements that manufacture consensus by positing fake peer-review and if they conduct real science they lose their funding from industry. Have you considered that’s what Jeff Schmidt is also warning about? That if scientists don’t tow the industry line, they can get rejected? These industry-sponsored “think tanks” thrive on being closed and having a lack of transparency. Why would you give these people equal credence to 97% of the world’s climate scientists who mostly work in the open with full transparency and proper “open source” peer review?
It’s a great way to muddle the waters instead of focusing on real science, that’s for sure.
This term “denialist” needs to be abandoned by climate science journalists. It bears no meaning when the models are under-performing.
Models always under-perform. There’s no such thing as exact science especially when dealing with something as vastly complex as climate science.
To start a semantic debate on what to call people who reject scientific consensus is useless. For example, there are studies that say that hurricanes may be pushed further east away from the East Coast due to climate change’s effects on the jet stream. No one is saying that’s climate change/impact denial, it’s the study of climate science and scientists are looking into it now (as they should).
On the other hand, the ones called climate change/impact deniers are typically people that aren’t climate scientists and they’re sponsored directly or indirectly by industry and their “studies” don’t hold up to true peer review so they (or their handlers) attempt to manufacture consent with “think tanks” that have very little to do with actual science and everything to do with a political and industrial agendas.
It’s important for people to realize that “thinking like a scientist” is no longer just a collection of methodologies and values. Ideology is now an important aspect of education.
You know what’s vastly better than “thinking like a climate scientist” and focusing on ideology? It’s being a climate scientist, rejecting ideology and focusing on true, properly peer-reviewed studies so we all can get somewhere instead of spinning our wheels in industry FUD.
What do you propose is better than peer-reviewing each other? Just taking each other’s conjecture on things and calling that science?
