Abstract
In his letter about our study (1), Aarstad (2) claims that the dominant perspective of climate scientists captured in our recent study (1) may not necessarily reflect objective truth judged by history. We present three responses to Aarstad's comments. First, risk management presents a more relevant and explicit framework for assessing scientific confidence around anthropogenic climate change (ACC) than does waiting for history's judgment of truth. Second, such claims of group-think or conspiracy-driven patterns in climate science fundamentally lack data and, therefore, credibility. Third, such unsubstantiated points contribute no substance to the discourse regarding climate science. We stand by the analysis presented in our study.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
