,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
As I revise my climate textbook, I've been thinking about how to explain "scientific consensus". Here's how I'm explaining it in the new edition. 1/
When scientists talk about consensus, they mean consensus in the **peer-reviewed literature**, not a vote of scientists' opinions. 2/
These actually should be the same, since scientists should base their opinions on the peer-reviewed lit. But operationally, the distinction is huge. 3/
If I think consensus means getting the opinion of scientists, how do you do that? How do you verify someone else's claim? But if the consensus exits in the peer-reviewed literature, then it's simple: just read the literature. 4/
And it also solves the problem of whose opinion counts. Your opinion counts if you've written a paper on that subject that's made it through peer review. 5/
This is why things like the Oregon Petition (skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-…) don't count. Almost all of the signatories of that are wildly unqualified and have not written any peer-reviewed work on climate. 6/
Of course, most people can't understand the peer-reveiwed lit (and most people who say there isn't a consensus on climate science haven't even tried to read it). 7/
This is where assessments like the IPCC's come in. They summarize the peer-reviewed lit for non-experts. You should believe the IPCC, but if you don't, there are lots of other assessments from credible organizations (e.g., @theNASciences) that agree with the IPCC's. 8/8
