Climate change sceptics are less 'credible' scientists, finds survey

Climate change sceptics are less 'credible' scientists, finds survey

physicsworld.com

A survey of 1372 climate scientists has concluded that the overwhelming majority support the basic idea that humans are significantly affecting the Earth's climate. The study also claims that the scientists, who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), tend to hold less "credible" publication records.

...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.pnas.org

Anti-Knee-Jerk Disclaimer:

Evidently any thread brought to this community regarding this topic will always spark a debate regarding the validity or invalidity of ACC. While I have stated that we can't ignore that there is far too much political pressure to encourage support of the theory, saying so seems to invite a near theistic crisis of faith in some; the natural response being - lash out and respond aggressively.

I would like to ask that you read carefully before assuming anything.

The Institute of Physics flagship website physicsworld.com surveyed over 1300 scientists... yet even in this article one of it's representative specialists...

Lorraine Whitmarsh, a social science researcher at Cardiff University, welcomes the study as the first attempt to rate the "credibility" of climate scientists with different views about climate change. She is a bit concerned, however, about the selection process for the survey's participants.

The magnitude of the misinformation, disinformation, error, or bias can never be rightly supported or withheld from any theory based on 'surveys' because of the plasticity of data and the measures the survey authors can use to manipulate the end result. (continued)

physicsworld.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Maxmars]

More importantly, we have to get beyond this obstacle, because we do need to live the reality of the situation, which does not include bickering and arguing; as an old Japanese man once said, "You don't worry about your haircut, when your about to be beheaded."

My objection to the ACC scenario is not about whether we are affecting the environment - of course we are.

My first objection is about the financial-political "solution" proffered and obviously preferred by the establishment; namely "Cap and Trade". My second objection is that complacently accepting the CO2 issue as the problem, we ignore many MANY other contributory factors and are content to stop looking for other - perhaps even more acute causes of accelerated climate change conditions.

The article shows an interesting twist in it....

While titled "Climate change skeptics are less 'credible' scientists, finds survey" ... the article clarifies that: "scientists, who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), tend to hold less "credible" publication records."

If I may point out - one is not equivalent to the other. For decades, Einstein, Edison, and even the great Tesla had "less credible publication records." That did not make them automatically wrong. But needless to say the politically more palatable ACC supporters benefit from the scientific communities tacit support, as is evidenced in the article itself.

"The [survey] deliberately selects scientists who have signed high-profile public documents about their views, and so exclude those researchers 'behind the scenes', perhaps with less extreme views one way or the other," she says.

Indeed, Whitmarsh points out that the survey excludes the 26% of researchers who are neither convinced nor unconvinced by the ACC arguments.

While I may get terribly annoyed and angry at this kind of manipulation in media, my subsequent rant will be seen or labeled as Anti-GW or anti-green. It is not so, what bothers me is the near certainty that when institutions and organizations go out of their way to cater to political expedience, they nearly always deceive us to our own detriment.

The reason the information is 'manipulated and skewed' is because left to our own analysis, they cannot guarantee our compliance. And since we are talking a new industry which would be destined to generate hundreds of billions in revenue, I suspect there is a motive there to deceive.

Andrew Russell, a climate researcher at the University of Manchester, says that the findings are "interesting", but is not sure how they will help in the communication of climate science. "The science can and should win the argument on its own, he says.

Russell believes that the media is often to blame when it comes to over-emphasizing the scale of skepticism towards ACC within the climate science community. "There are valid and truly skeptical questions that need asking of climate science but they don't fit the narrative that parts of the media have constructed so they don't get aired," he says.

The fervor and zeal many face from the skeptics is born of the in your face "talk to the hand" attitude the media and community seem to sport....

So, can we talk about this rationally, or do we have to struggle with the crap that those who wish to think for us tell us?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Maxmars]

It is beyond my comprehension to think that any sane and rational person could somehow dismiss the adverse effects of the human population on our planet. It defies logic that our presence and by products pose no harm to nature animals and delicate ecosystems. To deny climate change is utterly absurd.

However, it is the EXACT SAME Drill Baby Drill crowd that refuses to accept our plight as a result of our reckless disregard for the environment and the ensuing catastrophic Gulf Oil disaster. Less credible indeed. Is duh a word?



[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]

They did something odd there.

Grouped those who support ACC, but reject financial carbon credit, taxes, "Cap & Trade" under the opposing "sceptic group" label.

Why do that to their own allies?

"Friendly fire casualties".

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It is beyond my comprehension to think that any sane and rational person could somehow dismiss the adverse effects of the human population om our planet. It defies logic that our presence and by products pose no harm to nature animals and delicate ecosystems. To deny climate change is utterly absurd.

However, it is the EXACT SAME Drill Baby Drill crowd that refuses to accept our plight as a result of our reckless disregard for the environment and the ensuing catastrophic Gulf Oil disaster. Less credible indeed.

Do you believe that because those who question the validity of the carbon-centric cause of GW interfere with the promotion of the sensitivity you evoke, they should be marginalized, their credibility questioned, their opinions dismissed? Which is to say since you (and I for that matter) agree that we are poor stewards of this planet, we should grab onto the idea with the most marketing dollars behind it to correct the problem - and questioning it's premises and debating the completeness of the theory is somehow 'crazy'?

The good news is that AGW deniers are generally already pro-nuclear, and we can use the excuse of global warming to push Nuclear to AGW believers. Everyone wins.

[edit on 25/6/2010 by C0bzz]

The original claim was man-made Global Warming, Only the evidence when examined didn't support that, so they came out with the new Buzz word...."Anthropogenic Climate Change".

If it gets Hotter/Colder or remains stable ....It will be man's fault and you will pay for it.

Climate change sceptics are less 'credible' scientists, finds survey

Tell us something many of us don't know!

So we can bring together a couple of recent surveys and make a fairly clear inference:

1. 97% of active climate scientists readily accept the evidence that humans have and are causing climate change (Doran & Zimmerman, 2009)

2. Those who accept this evidence tend to be those with most expertise in climate science (Anderegg et al., 2010).

My first objection is about the financial-political "solution" proffered and obviously preferred by the establishment; namely "Cap and Trade". My second objection is that complacently accepting the CO2 issue as the problem, we ignore many MANY other contributory factors and are content to stop looking for other - perhaps even more acute causes of accelerated climate change conditions.

Don't let the first influence the second, they are different beasts but generally indicative of the backwards-logic of of ideologically motivated deniers. Indeed, you might say the 'establishment' supports it but that's pretty much rubbish. Some do, some don't. Ask the republicans, I assume they can be considered part of the 'establishment', who spent 8 Bush years actively gagging scientists and altering their reports to hide the evidence, and still actively fight against any action with some using McCarthy-like tactics to attack climate scientists (e.g., Inhofe).

The second objection is not the case. The evidence shows that CO2 issue is the major problem. And other known contributory factors are not ignored and the oft-cited holy grails are not off limits. Indeed, in europe millions of euros have been spent examining the influence of cosmic rays (one holy grail) even though it is pretty clear any potential effect has been minimal over the last few decades.

The reason the information is 'manipulated and skewed' is because left to our own analysis, they cannot guarantee our compliance. And since we are talking a new industry which would be destined to generate hundreds of billions in revenue, I suspect there is a motive there to deceive.

Oh, suspect? Perhaps you might want to take note of the evidence that shows what we can clearly see about industry-funded think-tanks and the product of their denial machine...

The reason the information is 'manipulated and skewed' is because left to our own analysis, they cannot guarantee our compliance. And since we are talking about an old industry which is currently freely generating hundreds of billions in revenue, we can see there is a motive there to deceive.

But, hey, hopefully we don't need another generalised thread about climate change, as they always devolve into the same old. Indeed, your recent thread about the study which apparently "looked for other contributory factors" for Antarctic glacial effects quickly devolved into general ideological whines about cap and trade blah blah.

The main points about this particular study is that those who openly express their positions (as the study only looked at people who had signed position statements) as having no issues with the basic evidence are the scientists with the most expertise and are doing most of the science. It's not that surprising. You only need to follow the output of the 'sceptics' to see how vacuous and crap it generally is.

Funny, though, one of those who was labelled 'unconvinced' complained about that categorisation - Roger Pielke Sr. He was the most productive of the categorised 'sceptics', lol.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

"The [survey] deliberately selects scientists who have signed high-profile public documents about their views, and so exclude those researchers 'behind the scenes', perhaps with less extreme views one way or the other," she says.

Indeed, Whitmarsh points out that the survey excludes the 26% of researchers who are neither convinced nor unconvinced by the ACC arguments.

Do you think this observation is incorrect, or exemplary of the problem? I wonder if the same observation made in the article is just as applicable to the other surveys you cite? It would be interesting to know.

Off Topic

And I can assure you, I have no compunctions about accepting the danger we pose to ourselves. But that point, in and of itself. is a gross generalization.

I respect your opinion because you obviously have devoted more time and attention to this issue than I have, and I trust you would not be inclined to use sophism to manipulate the intent of my words.

I have difficulty accepting the applicability of carbon as the singular climate issue, and I fail to see the applicability of the considered solution as a means to effect change. The fixation on carbon, I believe, is partly inspired by the revenue possibilities. Perhaps someone more erudite in climatology can explain more robust strategy for achieving an actual decrease of industrial pollution, that might have a more immediate and measurable effect.

I am no environmentalist, it just seems to me that allowing people to exchange currency to validate or indemnify their destructive or toxic activities is sort of... contrived.

You seem to resent the connection between the contrivance and the environment as a matter of trite or irrelevant ideology. Perhaps you can explain how the two are disconnected.

Back on Topic

Surveys, and the business of interpreting them, have always interested me. I found it more than mildly interesting that the author of this article presented their case including the explicit recognition that the methodology was suspect. THAT was the newsworthy part to me. Not really our dire need of industrial (corporate) behavioral reform, which I believe is the true root of the environmental damage of the last two centuries.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Maxmars]

As a point of curiosity:

I do wonder if all those who "can't believe that there are still those who *deny* ACC" have read the science and the literature that supports the premise that humans are NOT the cause of climate change. Obviously, those who believe in ACC have read at least *some* literature to support their belief, but have they taken the time to read *anything* supporting the opposing view? Beyond the words of someone saying the deniers are a bunch of [insert your favorite pejorative term here].

I noticed in the news article the use of the word 'overwhelming' to describe the majority of scientists believing in the human influence on the climate. I've noticed that term used in other articles describing the evidence as being overwhelming in some direction. The problem is that the term 'overwhelming' in these contexts tends to denote an emotional response to a given circumstance, but at the same time using that emotional response as a support for a given belief even though the author of the statement is portending to present a scientific argument that presumably should remove emotion as a criterion for deciding the veracity of any given state of affairs.

Besides that, I'm wondering if the scientist survey was intended at all to inform the epistemology of ACC given that the epistemological value of such a survey would necessarily vary with the epistemological value of the argument from authority. I have often thought maybe the argument from authority is merely the epistemological flip side of the ad hominem argument where one of those two forms of argumentation attempts to support a position and the other attempts to refute. But both forms of argument seems to rely on the same mechanisms of reasoning (relying on the reputation of the presenter of an argument or evidence rather than the argument or evidence itself). I have often wondered, if the roundly recognized as useless ad hominem argument have no merit, does that belief in the meritlessness of ad hominem logically necessitate the recognition of the epistemological uselessness of the generally better reputationed argument from authority?

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by melatonin

 

"The [survey] deliberately selects scientists who have signed high-profile public documents about their views, and so exclude those researchers 'behind the scenes', perhaps with less extreme views one way or the other," she says.

Indeed, Whitmarsh points out that the survey excludes the 26% of researchers who are neither convinced nor unconvinced by the ACC arguments.

Do you think this observation is incorrect, or exemplary of the problem? I wonder if the same observation made in the article is just as applicable to the other surveys you cite? It would be interesting to know.

I'm not sure it is really a fatal problem with the study. It does what it says on the tin.

I'm sure you've seen these sort of position statements and 'petitions' cited often, so it makes use of what can be seen as clear public expression of acceptance of the scientific consensus.

Just a convenient and useful method of asking a question - what is the scientific status of people publicly accepting/challenging the consensus?

And I'm not sure where she gets the 26% figure. Most recent surveys show 97% support for the basic science (temps rising, humans having a significant effect) of those active in the climate science community. It's also a pretty irrelevant criticism. The study focuses on public expressions of positions on climate science - unless there's a position statement which says 'we are neither convinced or unconvinced' then it's not so important here. She should know that social science often studies clearly dichotomous samples.

Would be a informative enough extension of this sort of study, though. However, not really going to enhance the scientific credibility of 'sceptics'.

A more valid criticism is that the study uses a less than ideal method of determining 'credibility' - google scholar is a bit naff; ISI/WoS would have been better (but would be more time-consuming, I'm sure). However, the study uses a clear and objective approach to the question. Which is good. Nowt stopping others improving the approach if they so wish.

I have difficulty accepting the applicability of carbon as the singular climate issue, and I fail to see the applicability of the considered solution as a means to effect change. The fixation on carbon, I believe, is partly inspired by the revenue possibilities. Perhaps someone more erudite in climatology can explain more robust strategy for achieving an actual decrease of industrial pollution, that might have a more immediate and measurable effect.

As I've tried to express, I'm not really interested in these general discussions (they're not much removed from circular discussions about evolution or something), so I'll just state that the 'fixation' on carbon has been over 100 years in the making. Not anything new. And it's not really a fixation, just a response to evidence. Would be remiss to ignore it.

You seem to resent the connection between the contrivance and the environment as a matter of trite or irrelevant ideology. Perhaps you can explain how the two are disconnected.

The science and any position of policy action are pretty distinct. OK, the science can be used to support a particular policy, but this is not restrictive. People can accept the science and support a series of positions ranging from action of various types (from C&T, carbon taxes, pure technological solutions of amelioration to mitigation, and both) to accepting the risks and doing nothing or just not care that much. Another response is denial, of course. It's easy to say things like it's fixation and scientists don't care about black people other potential issues and mechanisms, but your other thread appears to contradict that (and so does a quick perusal of the current literature and scientific focus).

However, it is pretty clear much of the time that those who challenge the basic science are mostly driven by proposed policy consequences. Which is a tad backwards.

Surveys, and the business of interpreting them, have always interested me. I found it more than mildly interesting that the author of this article presented their case including the explicit recognition that the methodology was suspect. THAT was the newsworthy part to me. Not really our dire need of industrial (corporate) behavioral reform, which I believe is the true root of the environmental damage of the last two centuries.

That's the way it should be (indeed, one of the general requirements when publishing science). I wouldn't say that the methodology is suspect, just that it has limitations. All studies do - none are perfect. Hence it is best to see this particular study within the realm of prior related studies (i.e., converging evidence). The vast majority of active scientists accept the basic evidence, and those scientists who publicly express this appear to be more active and credible than those who don't accept the basic science. It's not really a surprise to me.

What I find more interesting is the response of some of those of a 'sceptic' nature (I would tend to say important cogs in the denial machine). Particularly the rather laughable accusations of this study being a 'stasi-like blacklist' (Delingpole, Morano etc).

The information was already public domain and people who have supposedly now been blacklisted had already made their positions public of their own volition. The study doesn't even mention the particular individuals, merely uses publicly available data to examine a fairly relevant question.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by melatonin]

reply to post by Maxmars


Thank you very much for posting this !!!

reply to post by Maxmars


I appreciate your attempt at rationality OP, however, before even reading the provided material I can tell you pnas is not a credible source regarding AGW.

The amount of obfuscation and fraud coming out of the satellite institutions to the TPTB is so much so that the pnas statement isn't worth considering unless they issue a disclaimer:

- We did not manipulate the sample size of the selected scientists in order to rule out the effect of confirmation bias.

Its sort of like James Hansen at NASA. Sorry guy, you had AGW as a meme essentially between 1980 - 2005 to convince us it was real. You failed and in the process got exposed as a fraud (copy.exe August temperature data, paste.exe in September column; ZOMG! September was the hottest month ever!! U climate deniers are the Suxxor!!!).

Yea, this is obviously related to the imminent Cap & Trade push. Paul McCartney was recently out and about somewhere saying AGW skeptics = Holocaust deniers.

Well... we'll be on ATS Live! tonight in an hour from now (see my siggy) so if you want to discuss it, climb on board, visit chat for real time conversations during the show, or skype-call in to heat things up!



[edit on 26-6-2010 by Maxmars]

Originally posted by kinda kurious
It is beyond my comprehension to think that any sane and rational person could somehow dismiss the adverse effects of the human population on our planet. It defies logic that our presence and by products pose no harm to nature animals and delicate ecosystems. To deny climate change is utterly absurd.

However, it is the EXACT SAME Drill Baby Drill crowd that refuses to accept our plight as a result of our reckless disregard for the environment and the ensuing catastrophic Gulf Oil disaster. Less credible indeed. Is duh a word?

[edit on 25-6-2010 by kinda kurious]

Ok, Ashton. I don't believe anyone is saying that humans don't have adverse effects on the earth. However, the option is to weigh which is better for society, rich and poor. Like it or not oil is very cheap...without it out society would not exist. You wouldn't have the foods you want imported, you wouldn't have your computer, you wouldn't have the internet. People who believe that they are somehow the patron saints of the environment really grind my gears, as really...everyone who owns property cares about the environment. You can close your garage and leave your car running and it will kill you from the toxic fumes. The argument is not only what hurts the environment, or what is best for society...but to what extent humans have vs nature itself in the issue of actual WARMING (NOT the same as pollution.) This is still a debate, and still there is no model that proves the CO2 causes warming.

All models point toward water vapor...which if you will note, is not human caused. It is mathematically impossible for humans to cut carbon usage and stop warming according the scientists own models (which don't point to CO2.) So the question is, should we let market forces take us to new energy which is more clean than the current alternatives (with electrical power, you still have to mine copper, lithium, etc...all very heavy in pollution to extract.) OR we can pursue these alternatives and make people like Al Gore incredibly rich and hand over more government control of energy...THAT is the argument. There is no "yeah, screw the environment man, I want to bathe in oil" argument. It's about economics.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by yellowcard]

Originally posted by Maxmars

While titled "Climate change skeptics are less 'credible' scientists, finds survey" ... the article clarifies that: "scientists, who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), tend to hold less "credible" publication records."

If I may point out - one is not equivalent to the other. For decades, Einstein, Edison, and even the great Tesla had "less credible publication records." That did not make them automatically wrong. But needless to say the politically more palatable ACC supporters benefit from the scientific communities tacit support, as is evidenced in the article itself.

[edit on 25-6-2010 by Maxmars]

What was the criteria for "Scientist" to be included in the survey?

That is the question that interests me.

The Energy Industry has financed many "scientists" who had questionable credentials and often were not "scientists" with envirornmental or climatology degrees or experience. Most often I see "Geologists" come out with Anti-AGW scientific papers...because "geollogists" are the most handy scientists Oil Exploration focused energy companies have on hand and on the payroll directly or indirectly.

To be fair...I would take the study more seriously if they excluded...

"Scientists" that had in the last 5 years accepted funding of any kind from the Energy Industry OR the Government in the form of Envirornmentally focused research grants etc.

Either would bias their motives IMO.

Further limit the sample to folks that have expertise and academic credentials in the field.

Atomspheric
Envirornmental
Climatologist's

NOT Meteorologists...it's not a formal science IMO with standard academic requirements and credentials. Some places offer meteorologist degrees where the program is virtually entirely focused on Camera Presence.

Not all Meteorologists are unqualified to offer scientific opinions on the matter, but most are...just my opinion.

Without strrict parameters for the sample I am not sure this study tells us much.

Originally posted by Maxmars
The study also claims that the scientists, who are skeptical of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), tend to hold less "credible" publication records.

So what? It's such scientists who think outside the box that make significant and often world-changing discoveries.

Why is "credible" in quotation marks? What's the overall message of this article? Most of the scientists they surveyed believe in AGW therefore everyone should?

The bottom line is that as long as there is data in the AGW models that is dubious there is valid reason for skepticism.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I apologize for taking the editorial license to put the word 'credible' in isolation like that. I just have a hard time accepting the label of credibility based on the criteria used by the pollsters and their analysts.

Most high-profile science and philosophy in our history comes from people who were at once either 'crazy' or simply lacked such 'credibility' as the institutions of the day would accept.