General > General Technical Chat
heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial.
<< < (60/67) > >>
beanflying:
Please stop conflating 'skeptics' with actual peer reviewed 'Scientists' they are nothing like equivalent and just because you have an opposing view doesn't get you some sort of free ticket onto an expert review anything!

The answer is indeed 'obvious'  :palm:
cbutlera:

--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 12:17:07 am ---Please stop conflating 'skeptics' with actual peer reviewed 'Scientists' they are nothing like equivalent and just because you have an opposing view doesn't get you some sort of free ticket onto an expert review anything!

The answer is indeed 'obvious'  :palm:

--- End quote ---

You are right I missed out one word, I should have said AGW sceptical scientists in my last sentence rather than just AGW sceptics.  The word sceptic in the context of AGW implies scientific scepticism, but there is no doubt that some of those who claim this title are in fact pseudosceptics, so the clarification is useful.

When the IPCC calls for expert reviewers, anyone who has a suitable qualification can register.  Here is an archived copy of the online registration form.  The form ends with a self declaration of that suitable qualification.  The barrier to participation doesn't look insurmountable to me.

Edit: added sentence on pseudoscepticism.
beanflying:
What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

If you disagree with another's data, evidence or hypothesis then you put up your own and the competition of that circle is generally to be published and peer reviewed. Demanding or ambit claims that the other person is wrong 'for reasons' is complete  :bullshit:
coppice:

--- Quote from: beanflying on August 12, 2023, 08:44:26 am ---What part of this is so difficult? Science has NOTHING to do with skepticism!

--- End quote ---
Science is founded on skepticism. Science is not a thing, its a process, and constant skepticism is a critically important part of that process. All knowledge is contingent, and needs to be constantly doubted and reevaluated. We never have a whole picture. Advancement occurs when we realise that and keep questioning to tease out more of how the world works.
EEVblog:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change


--- Quote ---Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contain errors or cannot be replicated.[6]
--- End quote ---

If you believe that practically 100% of scientists can agree on anything then I've got a bridge to sell you. Let alone a topic as vastly complex as the climate.
Now, I'm not saying it's not true, that's not my point at all, we certainly do seem have some sort of impact, and it's very possible that we are the main cause of it. But it's very clear that there is not only vested interests at stake here, but vast pressure on scientists to, let's say, not rock the boat here. We saw this in spades plain as day during covid, and to think it can't happen here would be foolish. Quite a few scientists in the field have actually admitted it happens.
Fear is the biggest human persudader and motivator, faer of losing your job, fear of losing or not getting funding, fear of losing your reputation etc.
Name another complex scientific field like this where practically 100% agree, it never happens. yet we are supposed to think that practically 100% agree on this?
Something doesn't smell right...
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod