- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Want to discuss qualifications? OK. Let's do it.
Evaluating the Expertise of Climate Scientists
Posted on 16 Apr 16 by thomaswfuller2 • 31 Comments
James Hansen took his degree in astrophysics, not normally a climate-related field. Nonetheless, few would argue that he is not an expert on climate change. On the other hand, Freeman Dyson is possibly the second smartest person on the planet, a theoretical physicist who worked in the field of climate science for 15 years. And yet, … Continue reading →
James Hansen took his degree in astrophysics, not normally a climate-related field. Nonetheless, few would argue that he is not an expert on climate change. On the other hand, Freeman Dyson is possibly the second smartest person on the planet, a theoretical physicist who worked in the field of climate science for 15 years. And yet, because he does not support the consensus, climate activists dismiss him as unqualified.
How do we estimate the expertise of someone in a field where we ourselves are not expert?
This is a current events question, given the recent publication of ‘Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming,’ written by (among others) John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Stefan Lewandowsky and William Anderegg, all authors of papers much criticized here.
The point of their paper is simple: The work of some of the co-authors of the paper were cricitized by Richard Tol. The thrust of his criticism is that many studies of climate consensus eliminate large amounts of data considered unqualified by the researchers. Tol writes, “Cook et al (2013) estimate the fraction of published papers that argue, explicitly or implicitly, that most of the recent global warming is human-made. They find a consensus rate of 96%–98%. Other studies (6) find different numbers, ranging from 47% in Bray and von Storch (2007) to 100% in Oreskes (2004)—if papers or experts that do not take a position are excluded, as in Cook et al. If included, Cook et al find a consensus rate of 33%–63%. Other studies range from 40% in Bray and von Storch (2007) to 96% in (Carlton et al 2015). Cook et al use the whole sample. Other studies find substantial variation between subsamples. Doran and Zimmerman (2009), for instance, find 82% for the whole sample, while the consensus in subsamples ranges from 47% to 97%. Verheggen et al (2014) find 66% for the whole sample, with subsample consensus ranging from 7% to 79%.” . . . .
Evaluating the Expertise of Climate Scientists
Posted on 16 Apr 16 by thomaswfuller2 • 31 Comments
James Hansen took his degree in astrophysics, not normally a climate-related field. Nonetheless, few would argue that he is not an expert on climate change. On the other hand, Freeman Dyson is possibly the second smartest person on the planet, a theoretical physicist who worked in the field of climate science for 15 years. And yet, … Continue reading →
James Hansen took his degree in astrophysics, not normally a climate-related field. Nonetheless, few would argue that he is not an expert on climate change. On the other hand, Freeman Dyson is possibly the second smartest person on the planet, a theoretical physicist who worked in the field of climate science for 15 years. And yet, because he does not support the consensus, climate activists dismiss him as unqualified.
How do we estimate the expertise of someone in a field where we ourselves are not expert?
This is a current events question, given the recent publication of ‘Consensus on Consensus: A Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming,’ written by (among others) John Cook, Naomi Oreskes, Stefan Lewandowsky and William Anderegg, all authors of papers much criticized here.
The point of their paper is simple: The work of some of the co-authors of the paper were cricitized by Richard Tol. The thrust of his criticism is that many studies of climate consensus eliminate large amounts of data considered unqualified by the researchers. Tol writes, “Cook et al (2013) estimate the fraction of published papers that argue, explicitly or implicitly, that most of the recent global warming is human-made. They find a consensus rate of 96%–98%. Other studies (6) find different numbers, ranging from 47% in Bray and von Storch (2007) to 100% in Oreskes (2004)—if papers or experts that do not take a position are excluded, as in Cook et al. If included, Cook et al find a consensus rate of 33%–63%. Other studies range from 40% in Bray and von Storch (2007) to 96% in (Carlton et al 2015). Cook et al use the whole sample. Other studies find substantial variation between subsamples. Doran and Zimmerman (2009), for instance, find 82% for the whole sample, while the consensus in subsamples ranges from 47% to 97%. Verheggen et al (2014) find 66% for the whole sample, with subsample consensus ranging from 7% to 79%.” . . . .