Guest post by E. Calvin Beisner
![Alan I. Leshner [Photograph by Colellaphoto.com]](https://i0.wp.com/www.aaas.org/ScienceTalk/images/leshner-highrez.jpg?quality=83 "Alan I. Leshner [Photograph by Colellaphoto.com]")
Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and Executive Publisher of its flagship publication, Science, wrote in a recent editorial, “There is no shortage of topics where policy-makers or other members of the public seem to persistently misunderstand, misrepresent, or disregard the underlying science: climate change, genetically modified foods, vaccines, or evolution, among others.”
Well, I guess two out of four isn’t too bad. I imagine his and my understandings of GMO and vaccines are reasonably alike. But on climate change and (naturalistic macro-) evolution (not to oversimplify and distort), I suspect his conclusions and mine differ dramatically—and I have a feeling that, in question-begging style, he assumes that my conclusions are wrong and his are right, and what’s needed is for him and other scientists to help me understand the science better.
Trouble is (focusing here just on climate change), the better I’ve understood the science on climate change (having read over 40 books on the science and over 30 on the economics, and scores of major papers and thousands and thousands of articles on each), the more convinced I’ve become that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is false.
In fact, a careful scientific survey found that the more people know about the science, the less likely they are to believe in CAGW.
It seems likely, therefore, that Leshner will be disappointed in the results if scientists do become any better at communicating the science of climate change.
But a careful reading of his editorial suggests that that’s not what he’s really after anyway. After decrying scientists’ ineffectiveness at enlightening the public about the science of climate change, he writes,
Valuable studies have been carried out to discover what determines public attitudes toward science and technology, and some … point to an individual’s ideological views or cultural identity as having greater influence … than an understanding of the facts. Often, simply increasing public knowledge about an issue will not move the debate …. Instead, the way an issue is framed can have a larger effect on people’s views. As a case in point, many people will give more credit to the scientific claims about climate change when the issue is cast as a technological challenge than as a regulatory problem.
(I.e., with regard to that last sentence, if we beg the question of the reality of CAGW and just present people with the technological challenge of how to deal with it, we can avoid the problem of convincing them of its reality in the first place.)
It appears that what Leshner is really after is not better public understanding of science but particular public opinions about climate change and that he would be content to see scientists turn from facts to ideology, cultural identity, and framing to move public opinion on global warming—a dangerous but not uncommon view in our postmodern times, even in the science community, as I discussed in “Wanted for Premeditated Murder: How Post-Normal Science Stabbed Real Science in the Back on the Way to the Illusion of “Scientific Consensus” on Global Warming.”
That this would indeed satisfy Leshner his very next sentences confirm:
Science is complicated and often jargon-laden, so scientists may need help from a ‘translator’ to help tell a story simply and cogently. In doing so, the gist of the message is what matters. Here there is a lesson to be learned from antiscience [sic—note the question begging] forces, who regularly oversimplify science in very effective ways, even when distorting it.
Noting that “people care primarily about things that affect them personally or locally,” he adds, “thus, a useful approach is to determine what matters to a specific audience and seek a way to make the message relevant to them.”
Yes. Like telling kids who like furry polar bears that global warming is driving them extinct; or people on low-lying islands and seacoasts that global warming is driving sea levels upward faster than ever; or biodiversity champions that global warming threatens to drive half the world’s species extinct; or allergy-prone people that global warming’s cause, rising CO2, will cause the pollen that irritates them to multiply (to mention just four such tactics)—when the first three are false and the last is offset by the fact that pretty much all plants will grow better, meaning food will be cheaper.
The fact is, in my constant reading and conversations, I’ve found it far more common for CAGW true believers than critics to oversimplify and even distort the science. It’s the true believers who so readily resort to the claim, “Look, it’s basic physics. Greenhouse gases warm the planet, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so more CO2 means more warmth.” They’re the ones who don’t like to get into the weeds of quantifying “climate sensitivity,” CO2’s logarithmic warming curve, the sign and magnitude of climate feedbacks, the multiple natural drivers of climate, whether and how much local land use change (especially urbanization) distorts “global” temperature readings, or any number of pesky details that falsify their intuitively sensible but false conclusion. They’ll discuss them, reluctantly, if pressed, but only then.
“Public understanding and support of science and technology have never been more important, but also never more tenuous,” Leshner says. Perhaps he’s right about the support, but I have a hunch public support for “science” (in this context, code for global warming alarmism) is tenuous precisely because public understanding of science is growing—thanks to “climate skeptics.”
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., is Founder and National Spokesman of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, author of three books on environmental science, economics, ethics, and policy, and a member of the AAAS.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Jeff,
There is a connection, a similar overreaching in fields of evolution and climate.
The impetus that caused one may have caused the other.
History written by the victors such that it fully included the propagandizing of science.
It is time to stop gesticulating before Darwin’s awkward self-creating design theories. I can see how it fits our “me” psychology better than admitting the unknown factors of life.
Steven Hawkings recently pontificated on the non-existance of God; do scientists even remember what their job is? Let me hint: It’s not wild guesses with no evidence. Or is it? If you follow your own rules you should have scolded him.
And the fact that religionists say some off the wall things about this topic too doesn’t excuse the science people from bucking their job. Get to work folks. Evolution: take two.
There is a big science mental block about creation of the world and the vast types or beings.
There is a similar mental block about how the world functions, climate, etc. Assumptiveness is the bane of of a weak mind.
“So, are you saying that you agree with Beisner’s assessment regarding the science of evolution? Or, does he just happen to be completely off-base on evolution but right about AGW?”
.
Are you a 6 year old and not very smart even to know that “guilty by association” is a well know discussion tactic that only catch….well ….people like you?
.
If you say that 24ºC is a confortable temperature and i agree that implys for you that you agree with me that AGW certainty only exists in mind of some people by peer/political/economic pressure and as such it is exclusively a social construct with no science ?
Poems of Our Climate says:
October 21, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Jeff,
There is a connection, a similar overreaching in fields of evolution and climate.
The impetus that caused one may have caused the other.
I agree; keep smiling.
One more comment concerning “intelligent design”: “The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can’t be anything but man-made global warming, says a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist.” The comment is from Hanson. This is very, very close to the intelligent design idea that the world shows too much order to have happened at random. Hanson is saying there is no other explanation, so it must be us. ID is saying there is order and evolution does not adequately explain it. While I don’t fully endorse intelligent design (or more exactly, I don’t find evolution as creation a defensible explanation), with Hanson resorting to a similar argument, one can hardly claim no legitimate science considers it, though whether or not Hanson is legitimate is a real question. However, maybe consensus will swing around, especially if it’s the only way to hang on to climate change dogma.
Reality check says:
October 22, 2012 at 6:47 am
I’m guessing you mean Hansen, not Hanson.
joeldshore:
re your comment to me at October 21, 2012 at 4:14 pm.
OK. If you think that factual, peer-reviewed paper from Lindzen is “the oldest trick in the book” then you will be able to tell me why none of the persons named in that paper have sued him. And you will be able to cite some significant flaws in the paper.
I have no reason to doubt anything in Lindzen’s paper ( which can be accessed by anybody from
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf )
Clearly, you think I have been misled by the cogent and referenced information in the paper. Therefore, I would be grateful if you were to enlighten me on what you think is in the paper which may have misled me.
Or are you merely putting your hands over your ears, closing your eyes, and shouting, “Lah! Lah! Lah!” in hope that the evidence will not affect you?
Richard
One pities the students at University of Rochester.
Jeff: Yes, Hansen, not Hanson. My bad.
I don’t know why Joel Shore’s getting so hysterical.
Joel, calm down. The article is a light weight piece, like an op-ed. It’s not supposed to be a scientific research paper for goodness sake. All it seems to be saying is that if the science was more openly discussed, less people would believe in global warming. Nothing new at all in that.
Lighten up, dude!
richardscourtney says:
(1) This sociological paper appears in some conference proceedings or other. If you have evidence that submissions to that proceeding were peer-reviewed and the details of what such peer review actually involved (which is kind of dicey for a paper in the field of sociology of science), then I would be interested in hearing it.
(2) You may not be aware of this, but the bar for showing slander in the U.S. is much higher than it is in Great Britain (or Canada). And, as you might be aware, not every statement about someone that has not prompted a lawsuit is true even in Great Britain. That is even more true in the U.S.
(3) As for the flaws, I really don’t have much interest in delving into these sociological aspects of science that Lindzen has taken so much interest in. However, my guess is that one of the biggest flaws is simply that he has cherry-picked. E.g., he has identified people who have links to on the environmental side that are involved in the NAS but had ignored any that have links that might be in to the anti-environmental side.
Actually, you have no ***motivation*** to doubt anything in Lindzen’s paper since it tells you exactly what you want to hear!!!
Let’s summarize the point of view of most reality-based people vs you and Lindzen.
Reality-based people believe that there are left-wing environmentalist groups that have a left-wing/ environmentalist bias, there are right-wing anti-environmentalist groups that have a right-wing / anti-environmentalist bias, and then there are respected scientific organizations like the NAS and analogous organizations in all the G8+5 countries, as well as other organizations like AAAS, and the various professional societies like AGU, AMS, APS, etc. that overall don’t have any strong bias.
What you and Lindzen and other conspiracy theorists believe is that there are left-wing environmentalist groups that have a left-wing/ environmentalist bias, there are respected scientific organizations like the NAS and analogous organizations in all the G8+5 countries, as well as other organizations like AAAS, and the various professional societies like AGU, AMS, APS, etc. that have ALL miraculously been so captured by these groups that they display a similar bias. And, then finally, there are right-wing anti-environmentalist groups that are so remarkably unbiased that they are the ones that we should trust.
[In fact, it is worse than this in your case, since many of the right-wing anti-environmentalist groups like Heartland and CO2science concede basic points of the science that you yourself don’t concede, like the fact that our burning of fossil fuels are responsible for the rise in CO2. So, the truth is that you seem to believe that the scientific truth lies further out beyond what even most of the right-wing anti-environmentalist groups claim!]
And, you wonder why your point-of-view isn’t shared by many scientists?
Joel:
“as science explains more and more of the natural world, it leaves less and less that we don’t know”
I don’t suppose you can provide us with a ratio of known/unknown?
Don Worley,
Joel Shore has it exactly backward as usual. The more knowledge we gain, the bigger the unknowns. Knowledge is like a balloon. What is inside is what we know. The outside surface of the balloon is the unknown. As the balloon expands, the unknowns get bigger. Newton thought he had the universe figured out. Then Einstein came along.
Joel Shore says:
“Let’s summarize the point of view of most reality-based people vs you and Lindzen.” Thus cementing his reputation as a complete ass. He goes on:
“Reality-based people…” don’t “…have a right-wing / anti-environmentalist bias…”. And then Shore makes the preposterous claim that his organizations are not biased. As if. Shore goes on:
“What you and Lindzen and other conspiracy theorists believe…”
Prof Richard Lindzen is an internationally esteemed MIT Professor, more level-headed than anyone this side of John Christy. The fact that Joel Shore demonizes Prof Lindzen as a “conspiracy theorist” tells us plenty about Joel Shore — who continues his rant:
“…many of the right-wing anti-environmentalist groups like Heartland and CO2science…”
Joel Shore sees everything through his far Left prism. He is blinkered by his communist ideology. Shore wraps it up with:
“And, you wonder why your point-of-view isn’t shared by many scientists?”
Wrong again. Most real scientists reject the belief that CO2 is harmful, as proved by the OISM Petition Project. Shore’s clique has not been able to get more than a small fraction of the number of OISM co-signers to try and demonize harmless, beneficial CO2. And of course, the planet itself is falsifying Joel Shore’s belief. Maybe that’s why he’s gone off the rails here.
Joel: Thank you for doing exactly what you complain about Lindzen doing. You ASSUME that anyone who disagrees with climate change must be a right wing nut job that believes in conspiracies and has no knowledge of science. IE, huge generalization with only a couple of not-yet-published papers on the subject to in any way back up the allegation. Your entire premise falls apart if “skeptics” are not right wing nut jobs, and most notably if there are no right wing nut jobs as you claim. Believe it or not (and I’m pretty sure you won’t because it would disturb your happy little fantasy), some people actually read the science and make decisions based on the science. Their political leanings have nothing whatsoever to do with it. NOTHING.
Joel Shore:
I am only bothering to answer your long-winded and silly rant at me which you provide at October 22, 2012 at 10:12 am because it accuses me of a falsehood.
I wrote saying to you
Your reply did not query that it was peer-reviewed but said
Perhaps I should have linked to the peer-reviewed version. That may have misled you and – if so – then I apologise. However, I linked to a version of the paper which I consider to be formatted for the easiest read. That is not a reason for you to assume I would claim it was peer-reviewed if I was not certain that it is. Indeed, if you knew anything of what I post then you would have asked me for the peer-reviewed reference because you would have known I have it I say I have it.
This is a link to the peer-reviewed version of it that was published in Global Research
http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions
It is identical to what I posted except for formatting.
I consider an expression of doubts about standards of peer review from you to be astonishing when you are on record as supporting the usurpation of the peer-review process by the ‘Team’. Only this past week another scandal about such pal-review has occurred; see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/18/gergis-et-al-hockey-stick-paper-withdrawn-finally/
You then go on about the difference between libel laws in the US and UK. That is total irrelevance because some of the named persons live and work in the UK and are UK subjects (e.g. Phil Jones). But, of course, you don’t know that because your fears and prejudices prevented you from reading the paper.
You say
That is astonishing! You say you have not read the paper. You say you know of no flaws in it. You presume it contains flaws which it does not. And you presume it does not contain information which it does.
The remainder of your post is similar childish tantrum which includes untrue and infantile insults of me..
My post you claim to be answering concluded saying
Your reply to that consists solely of a loud and long shout of “Lah! Lah! Lah! …”
Richard
Well, I’ve tried to restrain myself from replying to Joel Shore on the grounds that it’s a waste of time to argue with someone who commits as many logical fallacies as he does, but I can’t resist now. He says, “I really don’t have much interest in delving into these sociological aspects of science ….” Rather ironic, since the sociological aspects are about the only thing he’s written about in all his posts!
Joel, let me know when you’ve finished reading the entire discussion of informal fallacies in H.W.B. Joseph’s classic INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC (one of the texts from which I’ve taught logic at the graduate level), and give me a list of at least 10 informal fallacies in your posts above, not only identifying but also acknowledging them, and then perhaps I’ll devote time to replying to you. Until you’ve done that, I’m perfectly satisfied with the refutations offered you by others.
Reality Check says:
Since my premises or assumptions are not what you claim they are, none of what you conclude here is correct.
Well, I tend not to believe it in the case of most people simply because the data suggests it is not true. What data, you may ask? Well, the very data presented in the paper ( http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1871503 ) that E Calvin Beisner cited in the above post. Of course, he cited it because he was excited by the fact that in their entire sample there was a small positive correlation between scientific / mathematical literacy and skepticism about climate change. However, the much stronger conclusion of that study is that a person’s views on climate change are most strongly correlated with their cultural values (on the scale of hierarchical /individualists vs egalitarian communitarians) and that as scientific / mathematical literacy increases, the gap in perceptions about climate change due to these different cultural values only widens.
richardscourtney says:
I could find nothing on that website that spoke to the issue of peer-review of the papers that they publish, let alone what sort of peer-review is involved and how highly respected the journal is.
Well, I am not sure how libel laws work. Even if Phil Jones is a UK subject, does he have the standing to sue Richard Lindzen in a UK court? Maybe he does, but you’d have to provide evidence of that before I’d accept it. At any rate, as I mentioned, even in the U.K. with your more aggressive libel laws, I am sure that there are plenty of lies that go uncorrected.
By the way, Iwhy you are so sure that I haven’t read Lindzen’s paper. I certainly have read at least a reasonable fraction of it…although admittedly that was a little while ago.
No…It is an objective fleshing out of what your full conspiracy theory would involve. You clearly want to avoid that, which is understandable given how ludicrous your conspiracy theory is.
Joel: That study also says you believe what your friends, business associates, etc. believe, leading to the conclusion that if you are right, it’s just random chance that your friends followed the correct belief. It says you got your ideas from the radical liberals you pal around with (or whomever, not so radical, whatever). Basically, it results in the conclusion that to convince people an idea is right, you just skip the data and surround them with people who have the idea you want to be believed. If you want people to believe in climate change, surround them with liberals who love Al Gore. This whole “you believe this because” applies to ALL sides. If my friends and politics talked me into this, so did yours. This is NOT proof of the correctness of the theory, only a look at what MAY cause it. If you agree with the paper, you just admitted you are not looking at the science, you’re just following your group.
Not with his judgment, but with his reasoning and conclusions. We’re not being told to accept those because of who his is. The article could have been posted by Mr. Anonymous.
Attempted equivocation (the deceptive or “switcheroo” use of a word, “judgment,” in two senses: first as a conclusion he’s reached, and second as his degree of sanity / rationality / common sense) & Ad hom.
joeldshore:
Everything you write is worthy of laughter but not of response.
However, I am again forced to rebut a falsehood about me that you post. Please note that I am continuing my practice of only refuting blatant falsehoods and not your delusional opinions.
At October 22, 2012 at 5:20 pm you ask me
I was “so sure” because I was replying to what YOU said. I was NOT – as your question suggests – making things up. At October 22, 2012 at 10:12 am you wrote
1.
You said you “don’t have much interest in delving into these sociological aspects of science that Lindzen has taken so much interest in”.
2.
You said you “guess” Lindzen’s paper contains information which it does not.
3.
You said you “guess” Lindzen’s paper does not contain information which it does.
My post – which you claim to be answering – mentioned each of those three points which each says you have not read the paper.
The remainder of your blather is equally ridiculous.
Richard
Roger Knights: Thank you. People just cannot understand that in science, who makes a claim is not a relevant factor. In science, it is the claim itself that counts. The truth in science comes from the data, not the speaker.
Joel Shore sez:
Interesting bedfellows you have! And, to think that people around here object so strongly when I note the obvious connections and analogies between “AGW skeptics” and “evolution skeptics”!
GlynnMhor sez:
Joel Shore writes of: “… God’s intelligent design…”
Not many people anywhere believe in that kind of stuff, and among those intelligent enough to examine critically the state of ‘climate science’, an even lower percentage.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
This pro-evolution page attempts to lay out the basics of the horse evolutionary line/equus lines.
The citations are all more recent than when I was taught evolution. we are buying the evolution idea when the data are not that extensive or complete. The experts say, ‘trust us.’ The evolutionary trees are acknoweldged to be wrong, but improving. Fair enough.
That website has this quote at the end:
“When asked to provide evidence of long-term evolution, most scientists turn to the fossil record. Within this context, fossil horses are among the most frequently cited examples of evolution. The prominent Finnish paleontologist Bjorn Kurten wrote: ‘One’s mind inevitably turns to that inexhaustible textbook example, the horse sequence. This has been cited — incorrectly more often than not — as evidence for practically every evolutionary principle that has ever been coined.’ This cautionary note notwithstanding, fossil horses do indeed provide compelling evidence in support of evolutionary theory.” (MacFadden 1988, p. 131)
All the species on the planet, and our best evidence for transitional fossil record is one genus, where things are still sketchy? One genus? And we have to keep making up refinements – punctuated equilibrium, bushiness, etc.?
This is starting to sound like the global warming gang. ‘Trust us. It is warming over here, glaciers are melting over there, and we have a great sounding theory (although we keep moving the goalposts). We have a little illustration that is fake (Al Gore’s goofy CO2 Mr. Science experiment where thermometers were switched), but tells the story anyway. Isnt that enough to be fact?’
Christian critics, if criticisms are taken seriously, will only strengthen evolutionary theory, if it is correct.
Already, Christian critics have had a great influence in the least 20 years. Arguments are more sophisticated – some Christians have noted that evolutionary theory depends upon the life-from-no-life-primordial-soup theory, and as a result, it has gotten more common for evlolutionists to clarify which phase of evolution they are talking about: origin of universe, formation of planet, spark of life in primordial soup (or falling from outer space), macro-evolution, micro-evolution.
The emergence and sustenance of the first few compounds – whehere proteins or RNA – is so unclear that often evolutionary advocates clarify that by ‘evolution’ they are going to skip the emergence of life issue, and skip micro-evolution, which is pretty obvious form dog-breeding and agriculture, to focus just on macro-evolution.
This advancement in sophistication has been pushed, in a hegelian-dialectic way, by critics, including Christians.
For many reasons, it is probably not that wise to be so smugly dismissive of Christian critics of evolution. When we believe we have all of the answers and are above criticism, we will end up like the global warming alarmists.
Reality Check: Yes, it works both ways (or on both sides, if you will). You are absolutely correct: Most non-experts in a field will arrive at the conclusion regarding it that fits their cultural values.
So, what is the solution to this? I think it is to respect the opinion of the experts in the field. I know that strikes most here as an appeal to authority, but the fact is, if you believe that science is capable of making any progress, then the authorities in science are usually the best that we have to go on.
If you decide instead to look at the evidence yourself, then great, but you should be well-aware that the conclusion that you arrive at about the evidence is likely going to have more to do with the biases you bring to the table (your cultural values) than the science itself. This is not to discourage people from exploring the evidence involving climate change, but just don’t fool yourself into believing that your exploration is likely to come to a conclusion that is more reliable than the conclusion of the experts in the field!
[Note: Implicit in this is the notion that science as a whole still works. I.e., I suppose one could hypothesize that even the experts could end up with conclusions that reflect more their cultural values than the scientific evidence. However, that seems dubious unless you hold a completely post-modernist view of science as being so captured by cultural values that it is unable to make any progress…basically, an anti-science view. Also, since the scientific community will include lots of scientists with different cultural values, it seems unlikely that one set of cultural values will hijack the whole scientific field.]
Joel: Your assumption that science is “pure” has little evidence in the climate change field. When a field is narrowed to only those who publish in anointed journals (your idea that the “science community has a lot of scientists with different cultural views is completely false since no diversity in opinion is allowed), that is not science. That is very bad behaviour. It’s also argument from authority, no matter how many times you say it isn’t. Worse, it’s using a very, very, very tiny number of scientists of your own choosing to define the authority. It’s like saying only people who have written platforms for the Democratic party can be interviewed on politics because they are the only people who understand politics. You can claim Republicans don’t, because they have not published in Democratic platforms. No, it’s not ridiculous, it’s accurate. One could also say only women who have been pregnant can understand pregnancy, meaning unless the doctor is female and has children, they cannot comment on or understand pregnancy and therefore cannot treat pregnant women. Only cancer survivors can comment on the effects of cancer. Only electricians can understand how wiring works. Only plumbers know how pipes work. Only university professor who are on Ancient Aliens are qualified to comment on aliens. Only architects can build buildings that are safe and useful. It’s all totally ridiculous.
If there is consensus, there is NO science. We only learn from disagreement, not agreement (and we should be learning a whole bunch on this forum…). So your idea of consensus just says there is no science in climate change.
I did not note in the psych paper where the writer excluded scientists from the phenomena. Actually, he probably did not include any. Might not get the results he wanted. Realistically, scientists are quite probably just as vulnerable. How do you work in a lab for a company that supports climate change and then tell your coworkers you don’t believe in climate change. I cannot see that happening.
Rest assured I make it a point not to fool myself. 🙂
Wow, Reality Check! That’s quite a bunch of bizarre statements. Let me try to handle the various things in turn:
(1) I never claimed science is “pure” but only that it is the best way that we know of for discovering the truth about the physical world.
(2) In all areas of science, there are better or worse journals and there are papers that would be difficult to get into good journals because scientists would not find them to contain good science. Your analogy to Democrats and Republicans is ridiculous because you assume your conclusion: that all the respected scientific institutions and journals have been corrupted so that they are all biased.
(3) Authorities in science get to be authorities largely on the basis of merit. It doesn’t mean that other people can’t have opinions, but if you went to the hospital with neorological problems, would you really trust the diagnosis of the custodian as much as that of neurologist?
(4) “If there is consensus, there is NO science?” That’s just silly. There’s a consensus in biology in regards to evolution. Does that mean it’s not science? There’s a consensus in physics in regards to gravity. Does that mean it’s not science? There’s a consensus in geology in regards to the Earth being about 4.5 billion years old. Does that mean it’s not science?
(5) As for the paper, it is not necessary to exclude or include scientists since they would make up a tiny enough part of the total sample of people as to have little weight on the results. To study the effect of cultural biases on scientists specifically, I think you would need to have a sample of just scientists.
(6) If you really think that science as a whole is just as plagued by cultural biases then you are in essence saying that you think science is a worthless enterprise for discovering the truth about the natural world (let alone informing public policy)…at least on issues where such cultural biases might play a role. That is a very anti-science position and I wonder if you would really subscribe to all the implications of it: Do you believe that science should have no role in informing public policy? And, if you believe that it should have some role, how do you propose it be used to do so given that you haven’t prescribed any way to determine what the best science is? I have never gotten a straight answer to this question from anyone here.