97%-98% of experts working in the field agree

[havelock]

We accept and rely upon the judgment and opinions of experts in many areas of our lives. We seek out lawyers with specific expertise relevant to the situation; we trust the pronouncement of well-trained airplane mechanics that the plane is fit to fly. Indeed, the more technical the subject area, the more we rely on experts. Very few of us have the technical ability or time to read all of the primary literature on each cancer treatment’s biology, outcome probabilities, side-effects, interactions with other treatments, and thus we follow the advice of oncologists. We trust the aggregate knowledge of experts – what do 97% of oncologists think about this cancer treatment – more than that of any single expert. And we recognize the importance of relevant expertise – the opinion of vocal cardiologists matters much less in picking a cancer treatment than does that of oncologists.

"Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "

from www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract

[havelock]

Ignoring the graph above as I think it is the result of a glitch (it clearly has no relation to the subject of the thread), here's a pretty good diagram

Attachments:

[jean]

Excuse my interruption, havelock, but on another thread marchesa-Mary is suggesting that you are a reincarnation of a poster formerly known as Spir-An.

This does not seem likely to me. Could you clarify?

[havelock]

Hello jean

No I'm not a poster formerly known as Spir-An, although it was written Sprain in a previous message that contained this assumption - see the thread titled Climate Blog is anti-science.

A general invitation was issued on the BBC R4 Message Board to come here to discuss the climate. I've accepted that invitation and, (arguably) apart from my anti-science thread, I have only posted messages that discuss the climate.

Unfortunately, it seems that these posts are unwelcome as they do not support Marchesarosa's views.

However, I thought that this was a forum open to all that do not abuse the rules - is that not the case?

[jean]

Of course it is - and you are very welcome!

[havelock]

Thank you for your welcome.

Can you help me understand what is happening here though? It seems that all of the threads I started have an identical graph on them - unrelated (as far as I can see) to the topic of the thread.

Also, there are a number of very old threads that are appearing with empty posts - is this a glitch?

A particularly odd one was one that claimed to be heradling a soon to be published paper back in June that doesn't seem to actually have been published, even though the previous post says something like "not long to wait now folks" or similar.

It's all most odd and not like the BBC boards at all.

[naymissus]

Havelock, ignoring Jean, who is simply concerned to continue the sort of spat she delights in, being totally ignorant of any of the sciences, your paragraphs about trusting of experts is entirely correct - we place an enormous and normally quite ignorant faith in the technology experts that almost rule our life

That trust is generally not misplaced, and it just happens that there is little dispute about how aeroplanes should be designed. Were there to be disputes and were aeroplanes seen to be crashing frequently then our faith in aeroplane designers would be justifiably shattered

Science and technology does produce division quite frequently. Take Darwinism - some scientists consider that Darwinism somehow obviates the necessity of a God - others dismiss that as nonsense.
Take the recent controversy over cold fusion that split the scientific community.
Take the raging controversies over the nature of electricity
Take the controversy over the nature of the aether in propagating em waves, the conflicts over quantum mechanics

Science, by its nature must have disagreement, and it is not really the place of the layman to interfere in those disputes

And with AGW, there is deep division within the scientific community.
But laymen, in the form of politicians have stepped into the fray, decided the pro-AGW body is right without having either the information or expertise to make that decision, and billions of pounds are now spent in support of AGW in some of th most preposterous projects that man has witnessed and that simply would not exist without massive government subsidy

Such is the ridiculous wind generator project that cannot possibly meet but a fraction of our power demands unless the whole country is covered in the things and at such a cost as to be ruinous.
Such is the delay in building nuclear power stations and conventional ones too so that we face electricity blackouts within 10 years.
Such is the absurdity of th Nissan electric car project - another scheme that would not exist without government money - cars that travel 120 miles and then need 8-10 hours of recharge.
Such is the governments 'green' policies to reduce atmospheric carbon that will inevitably make us uncompetitive in the industrial world and is the biggest government expenditure (and taxation) ever in our history for a single project
Such are the actions of laymen who decide one camp of experts is correct without having a bloody clue as to whether they are correct
And the money becomes the driving force, so the AGW lobby seek to destroy any opposition, ruining careers and telling lies to get their own way with government money

So the whole thing is no longer a scientific endeavor but a power-hungry scam, and people like Marchesa and others are quite correct to pick holes in what is the big new corruption.

And bear this in mind; Marchesa is far better informed than any politician because she has chosen to devote most of her time to this subject whereas politicians cannot possibly do so
So her word is far better informed than any politician, more authoritative than the the lickspittles who are throwing the taxpayers money away, more to be trusted than any Environment Minister

Sure her word should be challenged but any attempt to ridicule her shows just how small-minded and possibly stupid the ridiculers are.

[jean]

Nay, I have asked havelock if he is indeed a new incarnation of Spir-An as the marchesa has suggested, and I see no reason not to believe him when he says he is not. And he is surely welcome here precisely because he does challenge what the marchesa has to say about AGW.

I don't know anything about the 'glitches' of which he speaks, but if he looks around the board he will see that it is a very strange place indeed and has indeed been used for the purpose of continuing spats - one of the more egregious examples of which may be seen here:

thesequal.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=374&page=3

[jean]

That's fine, Nay - but motes and beams, you know; don't imagine spats where they don't exist.

[havelock]

Naymissus - I agree with you. I don't believe the politicians know much about climate science.

This thread began with some information about how many climate science experts working in the field agree, not politicians.

Let's take another example. If a surgeon said you needed a lifesaving operation, would you assume he was saying that because he gets paid more for conducting more operations? If you even suspected that and consulted another surgeon who then agreed with the first, would you suspect they were in cahoots? If 97%-98% of surgeons agreed with the first, would you suspect they were all in cahoots?

I'm trying to broaden out the debate on this 'blog' to discuss some of the actual science - it seems that marchesarosa doesn't like this. One has to wonder why?

[marchesarosa]

I was once told by a surgeon that he would remove my breast
immediately after taking a biopsy should he find malignancy.

My boyfriend and I told him to get stuffed and sought ANOTHER OPINION.
This is what people who are confident of their own powers of judgment do, Dr Sprain!

The second opinion told me there was no need even for a biopsy never mind a mastectomy!

This was more than thirty years ago.

The so-called expertise on which you rely is FALLIBLE.

Your argument in favour of rule by self-styled "experts" is a recipe for totalitarianism.

[havelock]

Not sure of the relevance of this graph to the thread - perhaps you could explain?