I think the whole idea of scientific authority is troubling. Of course (as another poster pointed out) we should all be convinced of the value of the scientific

I think the whole idea of scientific authority is troubling. Of course (as another poster pointed out) we should all be convinced of the value of the scientific method in school. It doesn't require evidence. Believing the scientific establishment, however, is an epistemic challenge. The way I think of it, for us to believe physicists to the extent it affects us is easy. We just buy gadgets, and they seem to work. We outsource the vetting of the science to companies, who outsource to engineers, who outsource to scientists. The engineers should be able to see pretty quickly if the science is somehow wrong. Medicine affects us as well, and it's a bit harder. Cause and effect is a lot harder to determine, and as such there's a lot of controversy. Since there's ambiguity, there's an incentive to sell us bogus cures, and as such a (in my mind) reasonable skepticism of what we're being sold. Climate science is even worse. There's only one climate, so cause and effect is really hard to determine, at least for the "consumer" (voter). There's not only business motives, but political motives. I think science advocates should think in these epistemic terms, rather than throwing a tantrum because the ignorant masses don't believe them. Maybe there's a way we could set up credible institutions that could vet the scientific establishment for us. "Peer review" is not credible, especially given all the bad stories I hear about how that system is broken. Can a maverick get in there and publish something completely contrary to the "consensus" and be taken seriously? I have no idea. All I hear about is "quack scientists" who don't believe in climate change, and I get real suspicious.