2. Preferably someone who has nothing to gain by stating what they state. An ironic benefit of the fact that denialists are dominating the seats of power is that we know that we can trust scientists like James Hansen, who put their allegedly cushy jobs on the line to tell us what their bosses like Senator Inhofe don't want us to hear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integri...
People like Kano and Raisin Caine do raise valid points about needing to think for ourselves, we certainly shouldn't be taking the words of radio talk show hosts or resource industry shills.
I would listen to an expert and look at his arguments and if he provided logical arguments and supported his position with facts and evidence I would weigh his opinion more highly. If the fast and loose with the truth and behaved in ways that led me to not trust them, obviously their opinion wouldn't be worth much.
I would say that when you discover that they want money or freedom from you or they want money, fame, etc for themselves, I would be wise to become more skeptical. When a scientists pretends to know something and advocates political solutions, beware, it may not be science they are truly interested in.
Frankly, when it comes to science, I don't believe anyone about anything. I recently looked up my name on the internet and found a post in the early 1990s where I was arguing with a paleontologist (Dr. in Paleo) about the ancestry of chimpanzees. I argued that evidence indicated a bipedal ancestor and this was long before Sahelanthropush and Ardipithecus were known. The mainstream believed we had a knucklewalker as an ancestor mostly because Chimps and Gorillas are both knucklewalkers but that is about the only real evidence. The bottom line is that I was proved right with time but I can't take too much credit. I believe I simply looked at the evidence without as much bias. IMO, the paleontologists were blinded by bias. I don't think science is furthered by scientists who tow the line. I also don't think most scientists believe in significant or harmful warming, at least not those who are critical thinkers.
I can read the literature. So I don't need to mindlessly follow an "expert".
If you were talking about a 1 degree rise for a doubling of CO2, we would not be having this conversation.
If the media and the sceintists where not trying to claim that every single freakin tornado is caused by man, even though tornadoes have been occurring forever, we would not be having this conversation.
If not every "correction" to the past temperature data did not make more warming, we would not be having this conversation. I can't even honestly tell if there has been any warming. The BEST report showed 0.91 degrees of warming. MEANING that he was able to increase the warming by almost 0.3 degrees or 50% by "correcting" the data.
You "science" is so chock full of problems that it is exceedingly difficult to tell that the whole thing is not made up.
Add to that that 97% of your models are overestimating the warming and that is given the "corrections" to the data. You all are pretending the world is going to end for what???
And the fact is that I can track down and show that EVERYTHING I am saying is true.
Here lies the REAL issue. For what? I just had a question asking for you warmer's proposed solution. Simple questions like how long it will take to implement, how much it will cost. I got no answers. WHY? What are they buttering us up for, because it feels like the slaughter?
When people pretend the world is going to end or humanity is with the absolute garbage crap research you have for AGW, there is something you all want, and if you are not willing to even say what it is, I certainly want no part of it.
But IF you want to know how I pick an expert? I listen to what they say, do research on my own and make sure that what they are saying and my research comes to the same conclusions.
This is why AGW particularly makes me nervous. Because I know my method works.
CF is right, at some point you have to trust the experts. Even the experts have to trust the experts. Climate scientists use the laws of physics derived by others and they use data collected by others and analyze it using techniques formulated by others. So even with their climate qualifications they are still reliant on others.
As to how to pick an expert, I would say don't pick just one. I don't know of one who has always been right on the issue of climate. Science papers are published on the basis of: this is what we did and this is what happened. It is left to the reader to work out if that is in any way relevant or useful.
The problems start when the scientists become advocates for their cause. It may be to secure funding. A few exaggerations will tend to creep in. It may be to defend their past work. It may be because they have an environmentalist agenda.
I tend to cross off the ones where I detect spin or half truths. So when I see something like this:
>>> Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was
>>> "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms.
>>> "But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added.
She gets crossed off my list of trustworthy scientists.
When someone says something is "unprecedented" when you know it has happened before then they get crossed off. When the IPCC claims it is now even more confident (95%) than previously but forgets to mention that they also changed what they are confident about (broader range) then they get crossed off as well.
People who argue that black means white also get marked down. Hot means cold, dry means wet etc.
People who tell only one side of a story are also suspect. If you use tree ring proxies for the last 1000 years and instrument readings for the present then you can make a hockey stick. On the other hand, if you use Greenland ice cores for the last 1000 years and tree rings for the present then you get a drop in temperature now.
Just pick one that sounds honest, does not always hint at alarmism without justification and is prepared to challenge anything he or she believes to be untrue. Without the challenge they are lying by omission.
I use my mind.
So far I have not be able to find anyone who disputes that a doubling of CO2 will cause 3.7watts per sq meter, so I can safely accept that.
Of the positive feedbacks, there is much controversy, people like Lindzen, Spencer and Cristy dont go for it at all, in this case I just use my commonsense if a tiny warming from CO2 could cause positive feedbacks, why has it not happened already, after all these feedbacks are caused by any form of warming not exclusively from CO2 and we have had lots warming and cooling periods in the past.
As for how dangerous is warming, I just did some research and looked back at the last major warming, it turns out to be the Holocene Optimum, (!optimum! climate scientists must hate that word) and it seems the world was a much more pleasant place then,
Also I checked out the changes in temperature rise and fall then, some were quite extreme, much more than in this century, but flora and fauna don't seemed to have suffered at all.
So Global warming does'nt bother me at all, and we have many more important problems to sort out in this world.
Chem. Whether what they say makes sense to you, and whether they explain it in ways that ordinary people can understand, I usually dismiss anything that is couched in vague gobbledygook. thats all you can go on.
A conscientious objector! Someone who understands that there are many "unknowns" and do not "jump to conclusions" based on a preponderance of evidence.
There are no experts when it comes to "climate science" simply because it is generally understood that there is not enough known to come to any conclusion about the climate and what drives and controls temperatures. This has been stated by scientists who are highly regarded in climate science. This is the primary reason why it is such a hard sell when it comes to taking action to control anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The Earth is going through changes in the climate as it always has.
News and media sources are the biggest "scare mongers". They flood the information highway with catastrophic news when 99.9% of these weather stories are very normal. These people are looking for ratings along with fame and fortune as are climate scientists looking to make a name for themselves. When politicians get thrown into the mix (Al Gore for example), then there is more of a reason to be skeptical.
Climate science has been over-sensationalized through politics and the media to this point. The challenge to prove anthropogenic influences on the climate was thrown out there with money on the line to help them prove it. People's greed and/or financial security is currently the main driver of climate science. There are no experts with any credible evidence to prove anthropogenic influence on the climate. "Certainty %" is only a selling point.
There are no experts!!!
It depends:
If you are a Yahoo Answer anti-science denier, with a slow curable cancer, you would of course spend every free waking hour perusing websites of astrologers, parapsycics, crystal-power-gurus, faith-healers, and Tarot card readers, and read up on conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds funding university doctors, and alien body snatchers infiltrating university medical research centers, to convince yourself that your cancer is a myth, and that modern medicine is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the human race.
The rest of us would consult a licensed MD, get recommendations for suitable medical specialists and reputable medical clinics, and look at websites run by the likes of the American Medical Association.
I looked for reasoned arguments that reference known science. There is a a lot of bs at wuwt and foxnews, less at PBS and libraries
Let's say you're a layman, trying to form an opinion on a complicated scientific subject, like AGW. Unless you can get the equivalent of a university education in the subject, and do independent research, at some point you're going to have to trust experts.
Even if you are trying to evaluate the information on your own, at some point you'll have to get information from an expert, and it's likely that there will be at least some information you can't evaluate properly on your own.
So, how should you pick 'em? What do you think are the most important criteria? How do you, a non-expert, judge an expert's expertise? How do you keep from being snowed by someone with an agenda? Any other thoughts?
