By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)
This week was marked by a blowout that may have greater ramifications than the BP blowout in the Gulf of Mexico. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published a survey of literature entitled “Expert credibility in climate” by Anderegg, Prall, Harold and Schneider that claims:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC [Anthropogenic Climate Change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. (Boldface added)
After ClimateGate, warming advocates declared they must communicate better with the public.
Apparently, some believe they can communicate better with the public not by demonizing carbon but by demonizing those who challenge their views, by attempting to demonstrate the challengers are somehow unqualified. The keyword “climate deniers” is a tip-off – those who think that based on physical evidence, climate change is largely natural, not human caused. Already, blacklists have been drawn up with names of those who challenge the orthodoxy. Sometime in the future, it may be useful to compare the allocation of funding with names on the lists to assess the objectivity of those who control climate change funding.
By publishing this survey and its conclusions, the National Academy of Sciences is approaching a low perhaps not seen since eugenics was in vogue.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
*heretical
Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm
That the PNAS has seen fit to publish a paper in which a central premise of a paper is the fact that 97% of scientists support the theory of AGW is a sad day for science…..
What has become clear is that much of “science” has become very unscientific. True science is open to anyone who is intelligent enough to take the basic premises of a branch of science, play with them and come up with novel testable theories…..
________________________________________________________________
Thank you for that comment. It echos my experience in industry dealing with PhD Chemists and Biologists. If you do not have a PhD, and especially if you are female those with PhDs do not even hear you. I spent years feeding my ideas through a Chem Engineer who was willing to listen and parrot what I said in meetings.
Also the expertise in one tiny field seem to make PhDs think they are an expert in everything. This was a very big handicap when a PhD was flat out wrong and “deaf” to boot. I had to have that PhD removed from a project because of his pig headedness. Even upper management could not change this guys mind.
Baa Humbug says:
June 28, 2010 at 3:32 am
Some commenters are entertaining the idea of what to do with the alarmists once this scam is finally exposed for what it is.
I REALLY ENJOYED Inglurious Basterds. The forehead…the CO2 sign
__________________________________________________________________
What happens to the alarmists will depend on how much suffering and death they actually cause. The EU with deaths from the cold this winter and the financial disasters in Greece, Spain, Germany and England are examples of what I mean.
If the insanity continues until the EU ban on heated family houses goes into effect in 2020 and that is coupled with a Little Ice Age, I would not want my name on that list as a CAGW scientist. Especially if a family living nearby loses a child to the cold.
JPeden says:
June 28, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Wren says:
June 28, 2010 at 9:42 am
The criteria is not a lie. It is reasonable to assume there is a positive relationship between number of papers written by scientists on a subject and their expertise on the subject.
Only if you don’t think Scientifically, Wren, which appears to be your main problem. Or else, and since you’ve ignored my previous response, tell us where your above criterion exists in the Scientific Method.
I’ll wager you can’t even bring yourself to write “Scientific Method”, unless, of course, you dismiss it out of hand – also = arguing fallaciously like Ravetz for “Postnormal Science” as necessarily transcendent, blah blah blah – which then leaves you right back with my original response to your question, i.e., that your criterion lends nothing to the Scientific credibility of CAGW, and in fact even tends to contradict it – in that the criterion is not found in the operation of the Scientific Method, so why is it even being proffered?
====
There’s no need for pedantry here. Common sense will do.
As a group, people who have authored research papers on a subject would be expected have more expertise on that subject than people who have not. And as a group, those who have authored many papers would be expected to have more expertise than those who have not.
BTW, the National Academy of Sciences recognizes that CAGW is a problem. Is that because the Academy doesn’t understand the scientific method? Nah !
“”” Gail Combs says:
June 28, 2010 at 7:22 pm
Boris Gimbarzevsky says:
June 27, 2010 at 3:57 pm
That the PNAS has seen fit to publish a paper in which a central premise of a paper is the fact that 97% of scientists support the theory of AGW is a sad day for science…..
What has become clear is that much of “science” has become very unscientific. True science is open to anyone who is intelligent enough to take the basic premises of a branch of science, play with them and come up with novel testable theories…..
________________________________________________________________
Thank you for that comment. It echos my experience in industry dealing with PhD Chemists and Biologists. If you do not have a PhD, and especially if you are female those with PhDs do not even hear you. I spent years feeding my ideas through a Chem Engineer who was willing to listen and parrot what I said in meetings.
Also the expertise in one tiny field seem to make PhDs think they are an expert in everything. This was a very big handicap when a PhD was flat out wrong and “deaf” to boot. I had to have that PhD removed from a project because of his pig headedness. Even upper management could not change this guys mind. “””
Wow Gail; you really are a radical aren’t you ? What a thought; that a PhD might make one an expert in the field of one’s PhD thesis; but not necessarily everywhere else. Well I am glad you had the guts to say it; I’d never get away with it; since as Mike put it I just had some “undergraduate courses” in math and science. Well like five solid years of Physics, and Maths, and Chemistry too; before I ever set foot on a University Campus; as a result of going to the right High School; then doing four more solid years of those “undergraduate courses” in Physics, and Math’s (actually five majors, as the University accounted for such things); (the chemistry stopped) at the University; followed by one full post graduate year, and a nearly completed thesis. But then that just led me to 50 years of on the job training in what Physics is really good for.
And my only “peer review” was my bosses deciding whether to keep me employed or not; they only seemed to care about whether my stuff worked or not; they don’t seem too impressed by my publications list; well other than those at the US patent Office. Cuurently I am under a publishing ban; on the theory that “we shouldn’t be teaching at that level”.
Well yes maybe I do need a PhD; maybe I can get one in ice cream making; but then You probably don’t like ice cream Gail.
We do have technology fields where the intensity of knowledge that comes with a PhD is madatory; and I’m glad there are those who go to that trouble.
But I’ve never tolds any boss, that I couldn’t do something, that he asked me about. I figured, if I could spell it, I knew enough to find it in the books; and if I hit the books, I could learn enough to get results, about the time my boss started to wonder what I was up to, and wanted a progress report. Seems to work so far; and my expected retirement date is now ten years behind me.
Some of the very best Engineers, that I have ever encountered, Gail, were actually technicians; who leanred on the bench why the design the degreed engineer gave them didn’t work; and since he wasn’t there with them whent hey smoke tested his contraption; they would design the next non working one the same damn way. Meanwhile the tech would figure out how to make it work, along with how to do it right the next time.
Yes we need people with all the intense knowledge that a PhD or a Masters can bring; but then we also need people who will tyr their hand at anything that looks like it can make a buck for their employer or themsleves, and keep the wheels turning.
And I see no reason why that doesn’t work in any science oriented discipline; not just the Physical sciences.
George
PS Gail, MOST of the female scientists or engineers I have ever worked around; have been almost “hire sight unseen”, because they were very good; they had to be to put up with; and survive all the crap they faced to get to where they were. The old boy thing is not quite dead and buried yet.
Watch out for the science police. After all, they controlled the world of Fahrenheit 451.
Wren says:
June 28, 2010 at 10:47 pm:
BTW, the National Academy of Sciences recognizes that CAGW is a problem. Is that because the Academy doesn’t understand the scientific method? Nah ! [my bold]
Well, I’ll grant you – because I’ve been essentially saying the same thing in regard to this PNAS Article and its “criteria” – that in inappropriately trying to lend scientific credence to CAGW by publishing the “Expert credibility in climate” Article, which 1] used criteria having nothing to do with the Scientific Method’s way of establishing credence, credibility, and expertise in Science; while the Article also 2] so scrupulously avoided the Scientific Method’s way, and even any mention of it:
That, therefore, the PNAS et al. in some significant sense must have understood or known what the Scientific Method is, and also that “they” – those particular people involved in the writing, review, and publishing of the article – were not using the Scientific Method’s way of establishing actual Scientific credence or expertise in this particular Article!
Again, because they all specifically avoided the Scientific Method’s way of operating in this case, their way “backfired” in regard to their purpose of trying to lend any real Scientific credence to CAGW. And so they are still left only with their own admittedly dogmatic CAGW “tenets”.
But yes, Wren, you did manage to write, “scientific method” without dismissing it yourself, which is kind of the opposite of what the PNAS did in this Article.
I find it interesting that there’s this claim here by David that were supposed to provide some kind of evidence of a conspiracy occurring here? In fact if you go into a government building and talk to an average government social worker, I’ve never heard one of them state that there should be less taxes, less government workers, and less funding for THEIR deparment. In fact, few if ANY will every state that there should be less government in general. So does this constitute a conspiracy? Of course it does not, but it most certainly does constitute self interest.
When governments get out of control, it simply an issue of them trying to exercise as much authority as they can until the people say stop. When the government in the province of British Columbia in Canada asked the people do you want more taxes the people of that Provence where on the provincial parliament’s doorstep with a bunch of pitchforks saying are you crazy.
The government then turned around and said let’s make this a green tax, and every one said, sure, that is a great and we happy open up our wallets even wider for you.
In other words it took the government all of about 5 minutes to figure out if you sell something as a green and environmental tax because that is politically correct, then you can get more taxes out of the people. I mean when is the last time you herd the government call on new tax on gasoline the following:
The increase the size of the government tax and lets have more government socialism by increasing a this socialist tax on gas?
In other words is it a conspiracy that they don’t call this tax the increasing of socialism and more big government tax? No, it’s certainly not a conspiracy.
So we simply standing here and stating that the scientific institutions are NOT willing to stand up and say golly this is a bunch of garbage, please get rid of the $20,000,000,000 of funding we’ve had over all these years. Lets close down the climate research institute and lay everyone off. I mean it’s pretty simple but if you make a proposal to the biology department to study the friendly raccoon, you’ll not getting any funding. However, if you add the magical word study raccoons population due to global warming, you’ll likely get all kinds of funding and it means the deparment can ask for MORE money also! So, it is politically correct for these governments to ask for that funding.
Do you actually think that the IPCC was formed by the U.N. which gets all of its funding from taxation and governments and their mandate was to try and find that global warming is not a problem ? Lets not be silly here.
This is the same thing with the whole carbon trading business, if you want to let Wall Street trade your glass of tap water on some exchange in Chicago to fleece more money from you every time you drink a glass of water, they will certainly do so. And if you’re stupid enough to let those guys trade your carbon, then they’ll be much obliged to do that also! Once again this is just a way for these people to fleece money from your pocket.
In all of the above cases no one hears making the claim that this is some kind of big conspiracy, but we most certainly are making that it is a disruption and perversion of self interest, and that’s for sure.
As for conspiracy? Well you just have to go luck at the leaked emails from the CRU. They DID in fact conspire to subvert the peer review process, and that is morally disgusting and reprehensible, and they were caught doing this. Perhaps worse is these people have supposedly been exonerated of no wrong doing?
How convenient is it for Al Gore to run around and make you feel guilty about the climate, but it’s even more spectacular and convenient that Gore forgets to tell you that is also on the Board of Directors of a company that trades carbon. So, is this a conspiracy? No, it is not, but it sure as the heck one guy selling you something that’s gonna make him even more buckets of duckets.
I don’t think anybody here is calling this whole issue of socialism and government workers saying they want more taxes and more government workers is a conspiracy. On the other hand you can’t tell me or show me any gov’t worker running around the halls of the local government institution telling everyone that we need less government and wish to have less government jobs, and there should be less funding for the particular department there working in! When you put it in this light, you clearly see this is not a conspiracy, but simply good old fashions self interest and greed.
It only people on your side that think we call this a conspiracy, so, sorry to bust your bubble, we simply been calling this self interest and socialism out of control.
This is not a big conspiracy UNLESS you can find me that government social worker running around telling me that we should have less government social workers and that the funding for their department should be cut.
So I thought it high time to point out that we people here as a general rule are not talking about walls covered with tin foil kind of conspiracy stuff. We’re simply talking about the cancer of socialism and how history has shown over and over again that these institutions will put their own self interest and well being ahead of the general good of the public.
It not our side that allowed the scientific process to be subverted into a political process. We’re not the ones that got into the bed with the U.N. or the Al gores of the world, it’s your side. I do feel sorry for much of the scientific community, because they suffered a huge loss of credibility here, but that same community did NOT stand up to this garbage and that community that’s now suffering the consequences of allowing science to become a political tool for socialist gains.
The end result means the science community is not partial and they given up the quest for quality science that seeks the truth and that is truly sad to see.
“”” Richard Sharpe says:
June 28, 2010 at 7:25 am
And it turns up in Science Daily:
Scientific Expertise Lacking Among ‘Doubters’ of Climate Change, Says New Analysis “””
So I left a note at Science Daily suggesting that in support of their promotion of Stephen H. Schneider’s piece of garbage; they prove his thesis, by reprinting just the first 20 papers published by Albert Einstein, on the subjects of Special Relativity, General Relativity, or the Photo-Electric Effect.
If ever their was a misguided notion; it is Schneider’s assumption that the sheer number of papers that any author writes on a subject, is a credible measure of his level of expertise in that subject. No it is simply an indication of how some authors can spin out a yarn over multiple largely redundant episodes, to satisfy their Institution’s thirst for publication exposure.
So just how many papers is it that Professor Schneider himself has published on the subject of man made global warming climate change ?
And just how many fundamentally new ideas or results is he to be credited with as a result of that number of papers; or are most of them simply rehashes of his same old tired ideas, in some other magazine or journal that wants to publish a story authored by him.
I have a rough idea, just how many sleezy steamy, x-rated paperbacks that Mickey Spillane wrote to occupy airline travellers while on a plane going somewhere. Today, he could program a computer to spit them out in minutes.
Now let me be clear; I am NOT equating any climate science paper by Professor Schneider, with a Mickey Spillane whodunit; I’m just using the example of Spillane (a very successful writer) to illustrate the churning machine process of rehashing the same basic material to keep it flowing in new clothing, to create the illusion of continuous creativity.
So just how many original; different; and widely accepted climate principles can Professor Schneider lay personal claim to; that qualifies him as a climate expert. What does biology have to do with climate anyway; well as compared to Physics for example ?
And remember; the real debate, is not about whether the slow societal changes in the peoples of Africa, has drastically altered the weather; either local or regional in Africa.
The debate is about the single issue of whether human usage of fossil fuels is driving the earth’s weather/climate system to the brink of some as yet unseen precipice from which there can be no withdrawal.
It is not about whether a handful of new species of ancient pollens or micro-organisms have been discovered in some previously unsuspected place; to hint at some distant past local environment.
The debate is about whether the proven data, since man had the capability; to the extent we may or may not have, to measure important weather, and climate variables with sufficient reliability; so that governments can make Internationally upheaving decisions; that have the potential and capability of destroying the entire economic foundation of modern civilizations; all in the pursuit of some fantasy that the best “Science” can’t pin down to less than some 3:1 range of outcome expectation; and is based on computer models which have so far not even proved capable or recreating the raw data that they purpotedly are based on; and whose future “projections” have themselves so far not come to pass; even after 20 years of observation, that by now should have yielded clear observations of those earlier projected claims.
It is now more than 20 years (or is it 30) since Dr James Hansen stood in anoverheated room before the congress, and delivered his dire projections for the future; and by now; there should be real quantifiable evidence of just what he claimed would happen back then; but that evidence is strangely missing from the climate record.
Isn’t it about time for him to come forward; and disown those totally rash claims that he made back then; and admit that he was wrong ?