Look, when you are sure you are right everything confirms your belief.
Who are these ‘neutral scientists’? When did climate scientists leave this class? What expert would just cede policy considerations to non-experts? I hope this class of people is a rare breed.
Climate science has obvious policy implications since CO2 is the problem.
Other sciences have had results that have clear policy implications. CFCs were bad. Marijuana is not that harmful. Cigarettes kill. Sometimes these results have helped develop good policy. Other times they were ignored.
Saying CO2 is a problem is bound to become much more political. How does that have any effect on the science? It doesn’t.
The noise around a subject can be a measure of the subject’s importance. It doesn’t translate into some sort of useful truth measure.
Saying CO2 is a problem is bound to become much more political. How does that have any effect on the science? It doesn’t.
Of course it does. Science is predicated on scientists practicing honestly. If scientists deliberately suppress disconfirmatory data, then peer review and reproducibility constraints won’t mean anything. (And no I’m not addressing climatology here, just making a general point.)
This does not mean you must assign a low probability to the science. It just means that this particular feature attenuates the odds you assign to it.
Remember: The fact that a theory is good (high probability) does not mean everything about it must be evidence of its credibility!
Look, when you are sure you are right everything confirms your belief.
Who are these ‘neutral scientists’? When did climate scientists leave this class? What expert would just cede policy considerations to non-experts? I hope this class of people is a rare breed.
Climate science has obvious policy implications since CO2 is the problem.
Other sciences have had results that have clear policy implications. CFCs were bad. Marijuana is not that harmful. Cigarettes kill. Sometimes these results have helped develop good policy. Other times they were ignored.
Saying CO2 is a problem is bound to become much more political. How does that have any effect on the science? It doesn’t.
The noise around a subject can be a measure of the subject’s importance. It doesn’t translate into some sort of useful truth measure.
Of course it does. Science is predicated on scientists practicing honestly. If scientists deliberately suppress disconfirmatory data, then peer review and reproducibility constraints won’t mean anything. (And no I’m not addressing climatology here, just making a general point.)
This does not mean you must assign a low probability to the science. It just means that this particular feature attenuates the odds you assign to it.
Remember: The fact that a theory is good (high probability) does not mean everything about it must be evidence of its credibility!
One of these is significantly less certain than the other two, IMHO.