3 ms·
Consensus is self-reinforcing, by the rejection of papers that contradict dogmas. It's also relatively rare to go into "Climate Science" as a field. I would exp
by mjfl 5y ago
Consensus is self-reinforcing, by the rejection of papers that contradict dogmas. It's also relatively rare to go into "Climate Science" as a field. I would expect no more than 1 in 20 physicists becomes a "climate physicist", if that. I also feel that it does select for those who are more convicted that humans are changing the world for the worse. You need motivation, and alarm is a good one. From all this, it would not surprise me if the field is a monoculture, with human caused climate change as the central dogma. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but pretending that the consensus measure is objective in any way is definitely flat wrong.
- lanevorockz 5y agoIndeed, there is also another piece of this puzzle. PhDs became a step in the career now, so people don’t study for ground breaking research or their masterpieces. Give me a subject that has companies interested in, you get scholarships and the companies lobby to get your paper published. You barely have to do any work.
- q1w2 5y agoI find surveys like this to be useful, although I don't think the number 99% is very meaningful. You are correct that there are biases in climate research and in scientist's selection of fields, experiments, and data. ...but even still, it needs to be quantified as well as possible, that the vast majority of published science confirms (or at least does not contradict) human driven climate change.