Sylvia Tognetti said:
Science can be wrong, but given what is known and accepted by “all but cranks”, it would require extraordinary evidence to overturn that consensus… However, Curry, like Joe Bast, apparently rejects a consensus approach without saying how policy could otherwise be informed by what science can offer.
Eli Rabbett (Josh Halpern) said:
“choosing up sides happens in the Pre Normal Science stage before ‘the scientific consensus’, but it persists afterwards but is only important if there are economic or philosophical drivers blocking acceptance of the science.”
Tallbloke (Roger Tattersall) responds:
However, if ‘the scientific consensus’ is itself a political contrivance achieved by suppressing alternative legitimate scientific viewpoints, then those rebels/cranks (TM NUSAP) will persist not because of economic or philosophical considerations, but because they care about scientific ‘truth’ as they see it.
And when they see ‘the scientific consensus’ gathered together in a single place debating amongst themselves about climate sensitivities ranging from:
“one of them stated quite openly in a meeting I attended a few years ago that he deliberately lied in these sort of elicitation exercises (i.e. exaggerating the probability of high sensitivity) in order to help motivate political action…A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5.’” (James Annan)
“say S falls to ~2.5K. Does it mean the sceptics are correct and we can all go to the pub and forget about AGW?” (BBD)
“1.77 K – over 1 K short of the unsupported 2.8 K number that you plucked out of the air. (You can check the 9% change back to my original, detailed, calculations.)” (Nic Lewis)
then the rebels/cranks (TM NUSAP) perceive that there is no such thing as ‘the scientific consensus’ but a mixture of rent-seekers/ranters/liars/realists (TM Tallbloke) who don’t own ‘the science’.
Jerry Ravetz says:
The difference between a crank and a rebel may become clear only in retrospect. Which was Galileo? He spent a huge part of his working life on a theory that anyone could have told him would never succeed.
Oceanologist Professor Judith Curry probably knows better than enviro-consultant Sylvia Tognetti (who cheerfully admits her inexpertise) how to distinguish the various elements. She says:
“Until we better understand natural internal climate variability, we simply don’t know how to infer sensitivity to greenhouse gas forcing…As scientists, we need to embrace the uncertainty, the complexity and the messy wickedness of the problem. We mislead policy makers with our oversimplifications and overconfidence”
Kudos to James Annan for lancing the boil.