[matthewmarkus]

If a racing driver loses too many races, she'll eventually have to leave the field. If a casino security person presides over too many unexpected losses, he'll eventually have to exit his area of endeavor. Their expertise is under constant pressure. A scientist isn't exposed to this same pressure, nor should she be, because failure is part of the experimental process. Thus, I think "scientific expert" is a contrast in terms unless it specifically refers to one's ability to conduct the scientific method (i.e., controlled experiments) within a given domain.

For instance, consider James Hansen. There is no doubt that most climatologists consider him an expert in climatology. He ticks off many of the boxes on your list. That's fine, but the climate models he presented to Congress in 1988 don't match observations since that time [1]. That's not to say climate change (née global warming) isn't happening, but that it is happening differently than originally predicted. This nuance is lost when "expertise" is accorded to the modeler. It is lost even more when we start talking about a 97% "expert" consensus that humans are causing climate change.

Perhaps treating "experts" like predictors and somehow attaching a coefficient of determination to each one would ease my concerns.

[1] https://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm

[JohnStrange]

Scientists can be wrong. News at 11. That has nothing to do with the question of whether they are experts or not.

[matthewmarkus]

An expert with a 50% error rate is a coin. A scientist with a 50% error rate is still a scientist, and perhaps an eminent one at that.

When tens of "expert" climatologists with an error rate of say 5% in their field testify in support of a policy that eliminates thousands of expert miners, geologist, etc. with error rates of say 0.01% in their fields, you're going to have resistance. That's a huge perceived inequality in terms of ramifications and consequences.