[MostlyStable]

There will always be bad pop science on every topic. The correct response is to ignore it, or, if you must, criticize the specific work and the specific ways in which it is bad. He is taking the existence of such bad pop science and smearing an entire field as being completely unscientific. Which is the entire problem that I saw with the 5 pages I read. He took a grain of truth and stretched it beyond all credibility and reason to ridiculous conclusions.

Much like his quote about scientific consensus. Yes, the media often sells a lie about fake consensus that doesn't actually exist, and to whatever meager extent it is, isn't supported by much evidence, but to take that (twisted, warped, and removed from context) fact and to then simply claim that one should never trust anything which has a claimed scientific consensus is idiocy.

One should absolutely be skeptical when you get a combination of factors:

1) The _only_ arguments are appeals to consensus 2) The topic has strong political valence

but those are very specific circumstances in which to be skeptical.

[defrost]

I'm fond of science, I did a few decades of exploration geophysics.

The Carl Sagan era Nuclear Winter discussions was almost entirely pop science.

The soundest papers of the time were dressed up back of the envelope Fermi estimations with the thumb heavily on the total devestation of the planet side of the scale.

It suited the pacificists, Sagan, Russell, et al to highlight nuclear danger, It suited diplomats wanting a MAD path to equilibrium standoff backed by the threat of total nuclear destruction.

> He is taking the existence of such bad pop science and smearing an entire field as being completely unscientific.

Rather he took the existence of a bad pop science field (Nuclear Winter papers of the Sagan era) and used that to smear another domain (atmospheric carbon models of 1967 onwards).