SciBlogs

Posts Tagged climate change

Liability of scientific denialism to political conservativism Ken Perrott Jul 22

No Comments


I have often thought that political conservatives who promote climate change denial are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Sure, I can understand why conservatives may be opposed to collective action required to deal with the problem of global warming. Or at least some of the political and economic measures that have been discussed. But if they are serious about their political and ideological stance, and their desire to promote it, they should be in there debating the adaption and mitigation procedures that have been advanced. Or advancing some of their own.

Instead, they choose to leave themselves “outside the tent pissing in,” when they avoid the political process taking place and instead claim there is no need.

Political suicide

It’s a suicidal strategy because, after all, one can’t change reality by denying it. And when you get yourself into the position of attacking and denying the best science, and the best consensus on the dangers of global warming, you are denying reality.

Sensible politicians accept reality, even if it is unpleasant, and work to alleviate the problem by advancing and discussing policy measures. Not sticking their head in the sand.

I suspect many political conservatives are starting to wake up to this problem.They are starting to question the wisdom of deniers like Christopher Monckton who is currently carrying out a personal unwinnable vendetta against Professor John Abraham (see Support John Abraham against Monckton’s bullying). The “climategate” scandal has been exposed as a hoax and no longer has much use as a political mobiliser. And some conservative commentators are starting to publicly question the wisdom of the climate denial strategy.

A worry to conservatives

An example is Jonathan Kay’s recent column in the Canadian National Post (see Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause).

Kay points out that the denial movement has reinvented a “2-3% sliver of fringe opinion ,. . as a perpetually ‘growing’ share of the scientific community.” And:

“Most climate-change deniers (or “skeptics,” or whatever term one prefers) tend to inhabit militantly right-wing blogs and other Internet echo chambers populated entirely by other deniers. In these electronic enclaves — where a smattering of citations to legitimate scientific authorities typically is larded up with heaps of add-on commentary from pundits, economists and YouTube jesters who haven’t any formal training in climate sciences — it becomes easy to swallow the fallacy that the whole world, including the respected scientific community, is jumping on the denier bandwagon.

“This is a phenomenon that should worry not only environmentalists, but also conservatives themselves: The conviction that global warming is some sort of giant intellectual fraud now has become a leading bullet point within mainstream North American conservatism; and so has come to bathe the whole movement in its increasingly crankish, conspiratorial glow.”

He laments that conservatives seem to have  lost “their hard-headed approach to public policy” when it comes to climate change. Instead:
“many conservatives I know will assign credibility to any stray piece of junk science that lands in their inbox … so long as it happens to support their own desired conclusion. (One conservative columnist I know formed her skeptical views on global warming based on testimonials she heard from novelist Michael Crichton.) The result is farcical: Impressionable conservatives who lack the numeracy skills to perform long division or balance their checkbooks feel entitled to spew elaborate proofs purporting to demonstrate how global warming is in fact caused by sunspots or flatulent farm animals.”

Making conservatives irrelevant

He warns that this unthinking approach is making conservatives irrelevant in one of the most important debates of our times;
“The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore.”

I wish our local political conservatives, the ACT Party, the Centre for Political Research and some very vocal bloggers would listen to this advice. Stop trying to deny reality by attacking the science and scientists. You can’t change reality. But you can influence the political debate and decisions.

But to do that you have to be relevant.

Thanks to Deep Climate

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Support John Abraham against Monckton’s bullying Ken Perrott Jul 15

No Comments

Six weeks ago I posted a slideshow of a talk by John Abrahm’s (see Don’t trust Monckton!).

It was a calm and objective investigation into the claims made by Christopher Monckton in one of his lectures. If you didn’t watch it I highly recommend you do so.

Trouble is, Monckton is not used to such exchanges and has climbed out of his tree. His has written a 99 page “rejection” of Abraham’s talk and sent threatening letters to both Abraham and his employers (University of St Thomas, Minnesota). Asking for the presentation to be removed form the web site and demanding money – which has all the implication of possible legal action.

Now he is further organising his minions via climate change denier blogs to send similar letters to  the University of St Thomas.

Monckton can’t be allowed to succeed in this campaign. I has all the earmarks of those campaigns by Stalinists against dissident Russian scientists, or the German Nazis against Jewish scientists.

It is important that supporters of science make the university aware that this sort of bullying is just not acceptable.

Gareth at Hot Topic is organising a way for you to make your support for Abraham known. Just leave your name on a comment at his post Support John Abraham. He will ensure these messages of support get to Abraham’s employers.

Effectively Gareth is asking us to support the statement:

We the undersigned offer unreserved support for John Abraham and St. Thomas University in the matter of complaints made to them by Christopher Monckton. Professor Abraham provided an important public service by showing in detail Monckton’s misrepresentation of the science of climate, and we applaud him for that effort, and St. Thomas University for making his presentation available to the world.

UPDATE 10:30 am, July 16: I am heartened at the huge support Abraham is getting – currently over 630 people have added teir names to Gareth’s post at Hot Topic (Support John Abraham). In contrast Mockton provides copies of three (3) letters sent to the University of St Thomas as a result of his campaign (see Letters to Father Dease in support of Monckton). Some of Monckton’s supporters are starting to question his wisdon in this attack and threat of legal action.

I believe it important that everyone who is concerned with protecting science from this sort of censorship add their names to the list at Hot Topic. Unfortunately science employers can sometimes be influence by threats of legal action to employ self censorship. However if the University is aware that there is a groundswell of public support for both them and Abraham I am confident they will not give in.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

The changing face of science communication Ken Perrott Jul 12

No Comments

All the reports from the inquiries into the climategate issue are worth reading. It is the nature of thoughtful inquiries that not only are problems identified, claims checked and unjustified accusations refuted. There are also usually some suggestions for improvements.

I think the attention that has been paid to issues like peer review, importance of statistical analysis, making public data available and the handling of freedom of information requests has been worthwhile. Hopefully scientific  institutes, professional bodies and scientific journals will pay attention.

The Independent Climate Change email Review which reported last week  made interesting comments on the communication of science and the role of scientists in this. Mike at Watching the Deniers has written a thoughtful article on lessons we can draw from this report on this and other matters. It’s well worth a read – I recommend it (see The chief lesson of Climategate: the depths of our naivety).

Failure of news media

I think one thing we have learned is that the mainstream media failed in providing useful and objective information during the “climategate” fiasco. Clearly conservative media disgraced themselves with an obscene public feeding frenzy and are now looking rather silly. While they will maintain their influence with the tea party crowd and similar stongly conservative minded people their credibility with most people must now be at rock bottom.

But even the main stream media was influenced by the hysteria at the height of climategate and often felt the need to use some of the rhetoric, to accept some of the claims of suppression and distortion of data. And to go out of their way to give prominence to the claims of deniers – the usual “balance” problem.

Part of this is due to the fact that the main stream media is poorly staffed with science journalists and has been loosing many of them of late. The other aspect6 is that5 the whole Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process is aimed at informing governments and policy makers – not the public. Consequently there has been a lack of good material – even for journalists – aimed at informing the public on the issue/

Mike quotes a couple of very important sections from the report:

“The scientific literature is relatively opaque to non-specialists. Scientific understanding that is transmitted into the public domain must be comprehensible to non-specialists, make appropriate and not excessive claims, and include careful statements of the uncertainties surrounding that understanding…” ICCER Report page 40

“Therefore, the Review would urge all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand; and to be open in providing the information that will enable the debate, wherever it occurs, to be conducted objectively. That said, a key issue is how scientists should be supported to explain their position, and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms….” ICCER Report page 42

Given the failure of the mainstream media to communicate properly on this issue the second paragraph is important. It is encouraging scientists themselves to take more responsibility. To develop the skills and find the forums for communicating complex ideas to the public.

And it is suggesting that scientists should be supported in this task. I interpret this to mean institutional support. Recognition of public communication as a positive skill for career advancement. The provision of resources, time money and access to appropriate audiences.

This need for scientists to be involved in publicising there is science is woder than just the climate issue. Recent years have seen several issues, klike genetic engineering of crops and animals, which have promoted pblic concenr and discussion. There will no doubt be similar isses in the future – for example nano-technology whcih will concenr the public.

Recent discussion amongst science groups in the USA have raised the need for scientist involvement in this discussion at the earliest stages. Preemptively, as it were. This could do much to alleviate public concern based on ignorance or mistaken ideas.

Importance of internet and blogosphere

In a section of the report entitled The Changing Forum for Debate and the Blogosphere the report says:

“The development in recent years of the internet as a vehicle for easy, instantaneous transmission of news and opinion has changed the nature of the debate about scientific issues. Prior to these developments, scientific debate largely took place in journals and conferences that effectively excluded the public from active engagement. Experts tended to introduce their conclusions to the public in ways that were difficult to challenge.”

“The mode has now changed ….. the conventional mechanisms of peer reviewed publication of results,….. has been paralleled by a more vociferous, more polarised debate in the blogosphere and in popular books.” ICCER Report page 41/42

There is no doubt the debates on issues like climate change are more polarised. But it is also true that the internet and the blogosphere is where much of the public gets their scientific information on contentious issues.

I think this means that scientists must participate more often in those internet and blogsphere forums. They must actually build a space on those forums for their communication. The reports appeal that “all scientists to learn to communicate their work in ways that the public can access and understand” is relevant here. So is their request for scientists to be “supported to explain their position, and how a public space can be created where these debates can be conducted on appropriate terms.

Support required from science employers

This section of the report finishes with:

“The learned societies may have an expanded role to play here in encouraging debate. We would also commend the work of bodies such as the Science Media Centre at the Royal Institution for encouraging and helping scientists to take their work to lay audiences through the media, and advising them on how best to do this.” ICCER Report page 42

We can see a practical example of this in New Zealand with the formation of the NZ SciBlogs platform which currently hosts or syndicates about 30 local scientific bloggers.  Maybe there is scope for local learned scoeites to improve their internet presence and participate in the blogosphere.

But I see the local institutions, especially the Crown research Institutes,  as being able to do the most to promote scientific presence on the internet and blogosphere. But at the same time, I see them as doing the least – and actually dragging their feet with this responsibility.

Local scientific institutes have had problems of  a culture of secrecy and competition. This has been promoted by funding mechanisms and also by the commercialisation culture which promoted intellectual property issues. And through all this we have the problem of bureaucracies fearful of allowing staff to participate in public discussions or disputes, fearful of legal action and controversy.

Finally there is the personal attitude of scientists themselves. Many have and are taking to public participation and blogging enthusiastically – and proving very effective. However there still appears to be a residual attitude that communication to the public and popularisation of science is somehow unworthy. The attitude that caused many of Carl Sagan‘s colleagues to be critical of him.

I guess that is a cultural thing. As more and more scientists do be come active on the internet and blogosphere, and as such activity becomes recognised in personal assessment and career prospects, this will surely die out.

Permalink

Similar articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

A regular climate science podcast Ken Perrott Jul 09

No Comments

Here is a podcast for those who want to follow the latest news and events involving climate science and the activity of those who wish to deny the scientific consensus. Irregular Climate is hosted by Dan Moutal* and Graham Wayne*. Currently it has reached six episodes and appears to aim for a weekly appearance. The web site includes show notes which appear quite useful with extra diagrams and videos.

I have listened to all six episodes and found it useful. I am happy to recommend it. So try it out.

*About Dan Moutal: He lives in Vancouver, ofdan.ca is his website. He has a blog,  tweets, and occasionally takes some pretty pictures.

*About Graham Wayne: He is a writer and journalist, does a little IT work, drawing on his corporate background as CIO of a group of companies, and composes and records music. He blogs at gpwayne.wordpress.com

Permalink

Similar articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

Climategate – Journalist withdraws and apologises Ken Perrott Jul 08

No Comments
George Monbiot

George Monbiot: Image via Wikipedia

Hot Topic has an informative article covering the the Independent Climate Change Email Review chaired by Sir Muir Russell (see Climategate’s final fizzle). The report can be downloaded here (FINAL REPORT). It’s 160 pages and appears very thorough. But it will take a little time to read.

Listen to the press conference where the report was launched this morning (download mp3 file Audio recording of the press conference (mp3 format approx 14MB). I think this gives a good idea of the flavour of the report and the effort that went into it. There is also of Transcript of Sir Muir Rrussell’s opening remarks.

Hopefully this report will do a lot to help reverse some of the misleading press and internet coverage of this unseemly climategate affair.

One journalist who has already admitted to have been mistaken is George Monbiot. Back in November he called for professor Phil Jones resignation. Now he says  he was wrong to call, soon after this story broke, for Jones’s resignation? (See The ‘climategate’ inquiry at last vindicates Phil Jones – and so must I).

There were a few local bloggers who echoed Monbiot’s mistaken call – I wonder if they will now withdraw and apologise. At least Monbiot has the honesty to admit his mistake.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

“Climategate” smears found false – Mann cleared Ken Perrott Jul 02

No Comments

The final investigation of Dr Michael Mann by the Pennsylvania State Unviersity has now reported. It has unanimously found that “after careful review of all available evidence, there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.” (You can download the full report here – Final_Investigation_Report).

No surprise to anyone who has followed this whole “climategate” beat up with an objective eye. In this video interview from Climate Science Watch Mann gives his reactions and thoughts on the “climategate” campaign (from Interview with Michael Mann on the Penn State Final Report and the war on climate scientists).

Interview with Michael Mann on the Penn State Final Report and the war on climate scientists.

Its worth quoting from dean of the Graduate school, Henry C. Folley’s, letter reporting the findings:

  • Dr. Mann had not seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for conducting research or other scholarly activities. The committee concluded that “the manner in which Dr. Mann used and shared source codes has been well within the range of accepted practices in his field.” They also state that the many prestigious awards and recognitions that Dr. Mann has won “serve as evidence that his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists.” The committee noted that had his conduct been outside the range of accepted practices “it would have been impossible for him to receive so many awards and recognitions, which typically involve intense scrutiny from scientists who may or may not agree with his scientific conclusions.”
  • Dr. Mann had not engaged in any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for reporting research or other scholarly activities. They considered his scholarly record and concluded that “Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field.”
  • On the issue of whether Dr. Mann distributed privileged information to others to gain some advantage for his interpretation of climate change the committee considered “Dr. Mann’s actions in sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties, without first having received express consent from the authors of such manuscripts, to be careless and inappropriate.”
  • In sum, the Investigatory Committee found that “after careful review of all available evidence, there is no substance to the allegation against Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University.” They note in the report that the decision to find Dr. Mann not guilty of the allegation of research misconduct was reached unanimously.

Final UK inquiry reports next week

Meanwhile – the final scientific  inquiry into  “climategate” is expected to report next week.  This is the Independent Climate Change Email Review.

This has been looking at details of how freedom of information applications were handled. As such, I think this will be the only inquiry which will possible report finding any unethical behaviour. This is an area where scientific institutes have been finding their way on the vexed problem of making data and methodologies fully available. So I expect there will be some useful findings which will help clarify approaches to this problem.

But what about all those conservative newspaper and blogs which uncritically participated in the climategate beat up? Will they now apologise and factually report these findings?

And what about those New Zealand bloggers who participated in this little charade? Who viciously attacked people like Mann, and our own climate scientists?

Sadly, I don’t think they will apologise. I predict they will either ignore this or deliver a spin about “whitewashing.”

Here are some of the initial reports of the news of Mann’s complete and final exoneration.

Mann Cleared in Final Inquiry by Penn State – Dot Earth Blog – NYTimes.com
Climategate’s death rattle | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
Penn State Completely Exonerates Climate Scientist Michael Mann On Bogus Climategate Accusations
Penn State clears Mann in Climate-gate probe
Climate Scientist Michael Mann Fully Exonerated of Misconduct by University
Climategate Scientist Cleared in Inquiry, Again: Scientific American
Will media that advanced “Climategate” smear now report on investigation clearing scientist? | Media Matters for America
Penn State Completely Exonerates Climate Scientist Michael Mann On Bogus Climategate Accusations
Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete — Penn State University
Interview with Michael Mann on the Penn State Final Report and the war on climate scientists
Penn State Live – Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete
Climate Scientist Michael Mann Fully Exonerated of Misconduct by University
Mann exonerated by PSU inquiry: “No substance to the allegation” « Deep Climate
Much-vindicated Michael Mann and Hockey Stick get final exoneration from Penn State — time for some major media apologies and retractions
An End to Climategate? Penn State Clears Michael Mann
Climategate Continues to Crumble – Ecocentric – TIME.com
Climate Scientist Cleared of Altering Data – NYT
Panel Clears Dr. Michael Mann in “Climategate” – Onward State
Penn State clears Michael Mann of all charges… now, will Climategate please go away?

Permalink

Similar articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

Ridiculing ridiculous science commentary Ken Perrott Jun 30

No Comments

Sometimes it’s pointless to debate rationally with critics. When their approach and arguments are ridiculous it may be better to ridicule them rather than treat them seriosuly.

Simon Jenkins, Guardian columnist

It seems some British scientists have decided to do this with one of The Guardian’s columnists, Simon Jenkins. The last straw was a silly article of his Martin Rees makes a religion out of science so his bishops can gather their tithe. In this he made childish attacks on The Royal Society and its President Lord Martin Rees, the Large Hadron Collider, the BBC for running science programmes, the UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, investment in science education, science advise on the H1N1 flu virus, nuclear power and “mad cow” disease, and so on.

This is how Jennifer Rohn describes Jenkins:

Those of you not immersed in the UK science media scene are missing out on a national treasure. I mean, of course, none other than the Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins who, although he claims no special expertise or experience in science, feels free to denounce it on a regular basis. No area seems exempt from his scorn: whether scientists are involved in analyzing climate change, ash clouds, BSE or swine ‘flu, they are probably up to no good.

All this was just not rational – it was ridiculous and ripe for ridicule.

So some British scientists have started to produce satirical articles parodying Jenkins style. In fact last Monday became the official “Spoof Jenks Day” when people were encouraged to produce articles and blog posts spoofing Jenkins.  This was kicked off by physicist Jon Butterworth (see A Mammoth of Research). Others soon followed and UCL cell biologist Jennifer Rohn has been aggregating them in her blog post In which evil boffins seek revenge at  Mind the Gap.

Here are a couple of intriguing titles – with short extracts:

Get over it, scientists: your cushy days are numbered by cell biologist Jennifer Rohn

People often point to journalists as being fallible, and I’d be the first to hold up my hands and admit, yes, what I write isn’t half bollocks. But ever catch a scientist criticizing one of his peer’s talks at a conference or – God forbid – recommending the rejection of one of his manuscripts in a scientific journal?

Simon Jenkins collects his tithe by science writer Brian Clegg

All over London there are “mammoths of tripe.” Costing hundreds of millions of pounds, these are “newspaper offices” whose editors pay large sums of money to “interesting” and “cutting edge” columnists. Ask not the value of the tripe these individuals pour out. The columnists jeers at the idea of value. These are outpourings of bile that are justified by the writer’s faith rather than any appeal to reason.

Urgent new priority for UK science by Imperial College structural biologist Stephen Curry

In a dramatic move today, the Government responded to an unprovoked attack on scientists from Guardian writer Simon Jenkins by announcing radical new priorities for UK science.

Revealing the policy shift, science minister David Willets said*, “We have to re-purpose the scientific effort of the country to address the urgent problem of recovering the missing half of Simon Jenkins’ arse.”

Bloody scientists think they know everything by blogger Rantarama

Y’know, someone had to come out and say it. Everyone else was too scared. But not Simon Jenkins. Oh no. He’s standing up to those bloody uppity scientists, driving around in their posh cars, wearing silk lab coats, and looking at atoms or whatever through their solid gold microscopes. No more! he cries. No more of your telling people how things work, using only facts and evidence to back up your ridiculous claims.”

Please help Simon by blogger Telescoper

Simon was quite bright as a small child, but things started to go wrong for him  early on in life. He was bullied at Public School by a vicious gang of “nerds” who forced him to look at their calculations. Later, a terrifying incident with a pipette in a chemistry lesson left him emotionally scarred. He started to have paranoid delusions and  nightmares about Men in White Coats and, more recently, Mammoths. He began to suspect all scientists were after his money. His behaviour became obsessive. Now, every gadget fills him with terror.  His actions are bizarre and unpredictable. He is no longer able to cope with everyday life and needs constant supervision.

Dictatorial scientists want us to marvel at their “magic” by post-doctoral astronomer Niall Deacon

This weekend scientists were again attempting to “engage with society” by encouraging us to see a dark smudge on the moon. This shameless attempt to co-opt the populace at large is yet the latest shallow, empty publicity stunt from the “scientific community”.

Journalists, you are fallible. Get off the pedestal and join the common herd by statistician and Nature Network blogger Bob O’Hara

So journalists are human after all. They are no different from bankers, politicians, lawyers, estate agents and perhaps even scientists. They cheat. They make mistakes. They suppress truth and suggest falsity, especially when a cheque or a plane ticket is on offer. As for self-criticism, that is for you, not me.

There’s currently over 20 articles on the list.

An unexpected result has been activity on twitter – short, sharp parodies written in the Jenkins style. Have  search for the #spoofjenks tag.

I’m off to read more of these parodies.

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

Truth getting it’s boots on! Ken Perrott Jun 27

No Comments

Sharon Begley introduced her Newsweek article Newspapers Retract ‘Climategate’ Claims, but Damage Still Done with:

‘A lie can get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on, as Mark Twain said (or “before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on,” in Winston Churchill’s version), and nowhere has that been more true than in “climategate.”‘

Yes, reaction to the “climategate” scandal and resulting climate denial offensive has been slow coming. Inevitable, I guess, becuase it has required investigation and reporting. We had the Pennsylvania State University inquiry which cleared Michael Mann (see Spinning exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”) and the UK parliamentary and independent Royal Society inquiries which cleared Phil Jones and the Cimatic Research Unit at University of East Anglia (see Climate scientist Phil Jones exonerated and Officially a fake scandal from science perspective).

Now some of the main stream media newspapers are withdrawing articles they previously published misrepresenting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climate scientists and climate science in general. The UK Sunday Times published a correction acknowledging they had misreported the “Amazongate” story, had misreported Dr Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at the University of Leeds and leading specialist in tropical forest ecology. They had in fact changed their story after it had been checked by Lewis and admit their changes “did not give a fair or accurate account of his views.”

Similarly the German Frankfurter Rundschau has withdrawn a story attacking the IPCC over “Africagate.” What is the moral of all this – don’t trust any “climategate” story?

Lies sometimes survive exposure

However, these retractions haven’t come easily. They were the result of shoddy, if not completely biased, journalism and/or editing (see “AmazonGate”: how the denial lobby and a dishonest journalist created a fake scandal and Sunday Times admits ‘Amazongate’ story was rubbish. But who’s to blame?). The Sunday Times retraction only came after Dr Lewis made a complaint to the Press Council which was upheld. And the retractions have taken months to occur. As Sharon Begley says it is just simply psychology that people will often continue to believe a lie even after the truth has arrived.

Well – I guess it helps that these newspapers have published retractions and apologies. But what about all those blogs (including several New Zealand ones) and conservative newspapers and websites throughout the world who faithfully repeated the lie – but remain silent now?

That’s not ethical.

See also:

British Newspaper Apologizes to Climate Scientist – NYTimes.com

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

A question of expertise and credibility Ken Perrott Jun 25

No Comments

In my last post Climate scientist’s register, I mentioned the new paper Expert credibility in climate change. Several other bloggers have described the findings in the paper, particularly the finding that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the IPCC conclusions and that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [the conclusions] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

The paper analysed the publication record of the two groups to get a handle on the expertise and credibility of group members. I have pulled out the data and combined them into the graph below. This summarises the difference in expertise between scientists accepting the IPCC conclusions on human contribution to climate change (convinced researchers = red bars) and those who reject the IPCC conclusions (unconvinced researchers = blue bars).


Briefly, approximately  80% of the unconvinced group had fewer than 20 climate publications while less than 10% of the convinced group had fewer than 20 climate publications. The mean number of publications in the unconvinced group was 60 (median 34) , half that for the convinced group – 119 (median 84).

When the investigation was restricted to the 50 most-published researcher in both groups the mean number for the unconvinced group was 89 (median 68) and for the convinced group 408 (median 344).

Considering citation numbers for each researcher’s most cited paper this was a mean of 105 for the unconvinced group and 172 for the convinced group.  To avoid anomalies when single papers are considered the paper also considers citation numbers for the 2nd to 4th most cited papers for each researcher. The mean for the unconvinced group was 84 and for the convinced group 133.

For more information on methodology and results you can download the paper here – Download “Expert credibility in climate change.”

See also:
Sceptics face yawning credibility gap
New study reaffirms broad scientific understanding of climate change, questions media’s reliance on tiny group of less-credibile scientists for “balance”

Permalink

Similar articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Share

Climate scientist’s’ register? Ken Perrott Jun 24

No Comments

A comment from Tom Harris, Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), on the syndicated version of Open Parachute raised the question of how much scientific support there is for the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Of course his group campaigns against the IPCC so he is trying to “prove” overwhelming scientific opposition to the conclusions (the ICSC was one of the sponsors of the recent Heartland Climate Conference).

Tom Harris, Ex. Dir. ICSC

His current campaign is a Climate Scientists’ Register. This is a petition listing people prepared to sign up to the declaration “We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming.” He currently has 109 signatures.

Reminds me of the Discovery Institute’s Darwin Dissent petition (see Who are the “dissenters from Darwinism”?, Dissenters from Darwinism in context and Scientific dissent from . . . science?).

We know science is not determined by petitions and such “registers” are not a reliable way of judging consensus. But in the battle for public opinion they do have some influence. That’s why groups like the Discovery Institute and the ICSC produce them.

So many retired climate scientists?

As these people have been prepared to have their name on a public list it is worth making some judgment of their likely credibility in the field of climate science. Should we listen to them, or are the authors of the papers reviewed by the IPCC more credible.

At this stage I will only make a general comment about one feature of the “register.” That is  the large proportion  of retired people on this list.

In Beware the retired scientist I described a survey comparing “climate sceptics and climate scientist who generally supported the IPCC conclusions.  As a group the sceptics tend to be older and many more of them will actually be retired, compared with those who worked on the IPCC documents.”

Now Tom’s “register” is meant to be restricted to “climate science experts” and he provides professional information for each to support this claim. His criteria seems rather loose in some cases but there is information indicating many are retired. I pulled out all that I could find listed as retired, emeritus or formerly in a specific job. Probably missed a few as some information is rather vague, many are consultants (often a sign of retirement) or work for a blog or think tank.

My rough survey found approximately 35% of the people on Tom’s register are retired!

In my previous article I commented that the age and publication record indicated:

“that climate sceptics are more likely to be divorced from peer review, familiarity with the literature and current findings  and the discipline of consulting colleagues. And maybe they can be influenced by commercial interests, or even just the fact that in the current political climate large numbers of people are willing to see them as authorities and uncritically accept and parrot their articles and statements.”

I think we can say the same about Tom’s “register.”

Please note – I am not knocking retired scientists. I am one myself. But because of my own experience I often think about the role retired scientists play in political issues and their motives for doing so.

The battle for minds

Now, how will Tom use his “register.” We already have one example.

The Conservative examiner produced the article Scientists–carbon dioxide is not causing climate change based on a press release from Tom Harris about his “register.” This of coarse implies the scientists generally have come to that conclusion (not true). The article promotes that interpretation by saying:

“For the past 2 years the ICSC has been on the cutting edge of climate science research.  That research has led the group to not only question but debunk the commonly-accepted notion that man-made carbon emissions are the leading contributor to climate change.”

It gives the false impression that the opinion that people on the register have signed up to is the result of “cutting edge climate research” - by active researchers! Again not true.

And of course this headline gets taken up by the climate denial echo chamber and communicated via Twitter and conservative blogs and newspapers.

Update

A new study has  just been published analysing  the scientific credibility of climate researchers who support the conclusions on anthropogenic climate change outlined by the IPCC compared with researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic climate change. It’s worth a read (see Expert credibility in climate change). Or read a summary at Climate Progress.

This study reports that 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the IPCC conclusions and that the “relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of [the conclusions] are substantially below that of the convinced researchers”.

See also:
Beware the retired scientist?
Expert credibility in climate change
New study reaffirms broad scientific understanding of climate change, questions media’s reliance on tiny group of less-credibile scientists for “balance”

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

« Older Entries