Interesting choice of words, “bludgeon”. I am sorry you feel that way, I suppose that when confronted with the strong consensus (97%) among scientists, that could feel like bludgeoning? From my perspective, using this thread as an example, if I were going to use that word, it would be to say that everything other than the science is being used as the bludgeon. Though I would use different words such as distraction and ignoring.
The numbers 97% and 3% are fact, as far as the data and the methodology was a reasonable way to estimate the number of scientists that are in agreement. If you (or others) feel that their data collection was flawed, or their methodology was flawed, or that bias crept in, or they are being advocates rather than reporting their findings, please share that with us. Otherwise, it seems a fact to me, as I understand the word “fact”.
Even if you back the numbers off to be extra conservative, say 90% vs 10%, or 80% vs 20%, that is very good consensus to have. In my career, having that much consensus would have been a big help in sorting out wildlife management decisions, smile.
As far as finding the 3% of scientists, I find that confusing, as you seem to be able to do that fairly well, based on the evidence in this thread. I know of at least one earlier example, where you posted a link to one that works with PragurU. Further, you seem to have quite good knowledge of them, asserting that they “are reluctant to talk about their fellow scientists”, “(need) to keep (their) mouths shut”, “are retired”, etc. So I find it curious, but would also suggest that due diligence requires spending a greater amount of your time reading and understanding what the 97% are in agreement about too.
The last point I will comment on is one that I think I also brought up earlier in this thread. We cannot just accept scientific conclusions. Not the IPCC report, or any other. We can point to many examples where the tool of science led to bad conclusions due to hidden bias, cherry picking data, faulty methodology, etc. Some unintended, some intentional. At times with horrific and depraved consequences. Count me in as a critical thinker that doesn’t just accept things at face value.
The intentional use of science in a deceptive way is the most difficult to identify, because those that use science that way tend to be deceitful, and hide or mask what they are doing. One telling feature from my own experience is that they tend to minimize discussions about their data and methods, and shift discussions to their conclusions and professional standing. Sometimes their “heart is in the right place”, but they are choosing a flawed approach that in the long run will hurt their cause and damage the reputation of science. I had to deal with that a number of times in my career. So I agree with you on this point.
And that is partly why I have offered to help navigate the science on climate warming. Examine it.
Kick the tires, so to speak. See if the methodology and data hold up to scrutiny. See if we can find biases that call into question the findings.
And why I linked to a good book on the subject of scientists and the roles they take, earlier in this thread. It is an important subject in my view:
Amazon.com: The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics: 9780521694810: Pielke Jr, Roger A.: Books
Another good book, that I also linked to earlier in this thread, is one that uses case studies to show how sowing doubt can be effective at damaging confidence in science and scientists:
Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change: Oreskes, Naomi, Conway, Erik M.: 9781608193943: Amazon.com: Books
Both are worth a read, if you want to better understand how politics and science intertwine.
