English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We report the results of an exploratory study that examines the judgments ofclimate scientists, climate policy experts, astrophysicists, and non-experts (N= 3,367) about the factors that contribute to the creation and persistence ofdisagreement within climate science and astrophysics. We found that, ascompared to educated non-experts, climate experts believe that there is lessdisagreement within climate science about climate change and thatmethodological factors and personal or institutional biases play lesssignificant roles in generating existing disagreements than is commonlyreported or assumed. We also found that, commensurate with the greater inherentuncertainty and data lacunae in their field, astrophysicists working on cosmicrays were generally more willing to acknowledge expert disagreement, more opento the idea that a set of data can have multiple valid interpretations, andgenerally less quick to dismiss someone articulating a non-standard view asnon-expert, than climate scientists.

Divergent Perspectives on Expert Disagreement: Preliminary Evidence from Climate Science, Climate Policy, Astrophysics, and Public Opinion