> this thing about the "confidence levels of scientists" for climate change; there is a well-known issue with this myth of a "97% consensus" on that topic. You

> this thing about the "confidence levels of scientists" for climate change; there is a well-known issue with this myth of a "97% consensus" on that topic. You're right, but what's your point? It's definitely above 80% and I've never met a climate scientist or someone working on adjacent research that doesn't believe it (given I've worked at national labs, that is a large number). I do agree we shouldn't embellish things. That this actually undermines a point rather than strengthens it. If that's your point, I'm with you. I also agree that a lot of stem people are too arrogant. This is especially common in CS and there's a strong negative stereotype that I think people should be aware of. Honestly, it sounds like you strongly agree with my original statement. How science communication is doing serious harm to public perception of science. I'm not saying abandon education btw, just that we're doing a bad job when optimizing for views rather than strongly constraining for maintaining integrity and honesty