Temporary note: the publication date was set by the journal to be 7 May 2015 but as of 10am GMT the doi has not gone live. Until the link is live, copies of the corrected proofs can be obtained by emailing me.
The press release:
How climate science denial affects the scientific community
Climate change denial in public discourse may encourage climate scientists to over-emphasise scientific uncertainty and is also affecting how they themselves speak – and perhaps even think – about their own research, a new study from the University of Bristol, UK argues.
Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, from Bristol’s School of Experimental Psychology and the Cabot Institute, and colleagues from Harvard University and three institutions in Australia show how the language used by people who oppose the scientific consensus on climate change has seeped into scientists’ discussion of the alleged recent ‘hiatus’ or ‘pause’ in global warming, and has thereby unwittingly reinforced a misleading message.
The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that global warming continues unabated, which implies that talk of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ is misleading. Recent warming has been slower than the long term trend, but this fluctuation differs little from past fluctuations in warming rate, including past periods of more rapid than average warming. Crucially, on previous occasions when decadal warming was particularly rapid, the scientific community did not give short-term climate variability the attention it has now received, when decadal warming was slower. During earlier rapid warming there was no additional research effort directed at explaining ‘catastrophic’ warming. By contrast, the recent modest decrease in the rate of warming has elicited numerous articles and special issues of leading journals.
This asymmetry in response to fluctuations in the decadal warming trend likely reflects what the study’s authors call the ‘seepage’ of contrarian claims into scientific work.
Professor Lewandowsky said: “It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models, even though all of them permit – indeed, expect – changes in the rate of warming over any arbitrarily chosen period.”
So why might scientists be affected by contrarian public discourse? The study argues that three recognised psychological mechanisms are at work: ‘stereotype threat’, ‘pluralistic ignorance’ and the ‘third-person effect’.
‘Stereotype threat’ refers to the emotional and behaviour responses when a person is reminded of an adverse stereotype against a group to which they belong. Thus, when scientists are stereotyped as ‘alarmists’, a predicted response would be for them to try to avoid seeming alarmist by downplaying the degree of threat. Several studies have indeed shown that scientists tend to avoid highlighting risks, lest they be seen as ‘alarmist’.
‘Pluralistic ignorance’ describes the phenomenon which arises when a minority opinion is given disproportionate prominence in public debate, resulting in the majority of people incorrectly assuming their opinion is marginalised. Thus, a public discourse that asserts that the IPCC has exaggerated the threat of climate change may cause scientists who disagree to think their views are in the minority, and they may therefore feel inhibited from speaking out in public.
Research shows that people generally believe that persuasive communications exert a stronger effect on others than on themselves: this is known as the ‘third-person effect’. However, in actual fact, people tend to be more affected by persuasive messages than they think. This suggests the scientific community may be susceptible to arguments against climate change even when they know them to be false.
Professor Lewandowsky said: “We scientists have a unique and crucial role in public policy: to communicate clearly and accurately the entire range of risks that we know about. The public has a right to be informed about risks, even if they are alarming.
“Climate scientists have done a great job pursuing their science under great political pressure and they have tirelessly rebutted pseudoscientific arguments against their work. However, sometimes scientists have inadvertently allowed contrarian claims to frame the language of their scientific thinking, leading us to overstate uncertainty and under-communicate knowledge.
“Knowing about one’s own susceptibility to outside pressure is half the battle: our research may therefore enable scientists to recognise the potential for this seepage of contrarian arguments into their own language and thinking.”
The study is published today in Global Environmental Change.
###
Paper
‘Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community’ by Stephan Lewandowsky, Naomi Oreskes, James S. Risbey, Ben R. Newell and Michael Smithson in Global Environmental Change
NOTE: The paper will be here if they ever get their act together: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.02.013
Barry Woods writes in an email to me:
Pause for thought Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards & Doug McNeall – Nature Climate ChangeThe recent slowdown (or ‘pause’) in global surface temperature rise is a hot topic for climate scientists and the wider public.We discuss how climate scientists have tried to communicate the pause and suggest that ‘many-to-many’ communication offers a key opportunity to directly engage with the public.
Doug McNeall @dougmcneall*brief pause while @NaomiOreskes googles me*
John Kennedy @micefearboggisClimate Scientist walks into a bar, says, “A pint of…………bitter”Barman: “Why the long pause?”Climate Scientist: <sobs>
John Kennedy@micefearboggis Sep 24I say Hi-ah-tus, you say Hi-ay-tus. Hi-ay-tus, Hi-ah-tus Hi-ay-tus, Hi-ah-tus Let’s call the whole thing off
Pause for thought Ed Hawkins, Tamsin Edwards & Doug McNeall
Tamsin – Cern TedXThe first problem uncertainty brings is the extra difficulty for the expert in explaining their results, and the non-expert in understanding them. For example, over the past 17 years or so there has been a slowdown, even a pause, in the rate of warming of the atmosphere. We’re confident the climate is still changing, because the ocean is still warming, the land losing ice, sea level rising, and we predict the atmosphere will start to warm again after this temporary blipI hope this list will grow, and start conversations that help us deal better with uncertainty in climate science – perhaps even with the messy business of science itself. So if you’re confused about climate … puzzled about the pause … surprised about sea level … or just uncertain about uncertainty … please come and find us. We’d love to talk.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They are attempting the Jedi Mind Trick, repeating “There is no pause.”
Another Lew (loo?) paper. That’s good because I have been running out of the stuff in my bathroom.
Once again we are shown how individuals Drs. Lewandowsky and Oreskes don’t seem to have the common sense to understand one thing that I have been preaching for some time now: Electricity generation and energy generation in general are technological and engineering issues, not activist ones involving fear mongering and scientifically faulty climate scare stories. History has taught us (among other things) that it is technological change and improvement that ushers in new eras in human history (the printing press, the internal combustion engine, rocket engines, etc.) In this case of course, we’re talking about a post-fossil fuels era of which nuclear (preferably fourth generation) must play a large part. I see no evidence that the campaign that these two and others are engaged in is capable of ushering in any such era.
It is both sad and frustrating to see individuals that have the fancy PhD letters after their names are unable to demonstrate an ability to accept and understand this lesson from history and let it sink home between their ears.
If I were an inventor, I guess it would be time for me or someone to invent a CCS mask to fit over the human face to capture those horrible, evil CO2 gases while exhaling. And while I was at it, maybe one for the buttocks as well to capture the greenhouse gases that contribute to CAGW when one….um, well, you know what. I could make a fortune if I managed to convince the feds of the need for it. Just don’t let them outlaw baked beans and beer and….
Even the NY Times, in the inside pages, knows about the pause:
“There’s been a burst of worthy research aimed at figuring out what causes the stutter-steps in the process [global warming] — including the current hiatus/pause/plateau that has generated so much discussion.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/a-closer-look-at-turbulent-oceans-and-greenhouse-heating/
This obsession that some climate scientists have with “deniers,” or as some put it, “denialists,” is worthy of a peer reviewed scientific paper in and of itself.
as of 4PM EST, the “paper” is still not available
questions –
1) aside from us whacking this, does anyone really pay any attention to –
Global Environmental Change journal or whatever it is?
2) as this is no more than an op-ed piece on psycho twisting and belieforama, why couldn’t anyone just gin up something using the jargon? aside from pal review issues
Have seen one too many socialist and/or plain stupid TED talk. The brand is in the tank, TED should just call it a day. Or maybe sell out to stupid warmunists entirely and exploit stupid Californian dotcom 2.0 wannabes with huge entrance fees for the rest of their lives.
Hatred ?
I’d rather set a trap. Get it done right.
An indication of how vindictive Oreskes can be toward anyone who disputes the alarmist agenda is a 2008 paper that accused the late William Nierenberg of “Social Deconstruction of Scientific Knowledge” for not demanding climate action back in 1983. Bill Nierenberg wasn’t around to defend himself, but his son took up the task of debunking Oreskes’s misrepresentations. For those committed to the cause of destroying capitalism, however, Nierenberg is still a “merchant of doubt.”
Nutso fasst
Your 2nd link doesn’t work for me.
By the way, the Oreskes paper was actually pretty good. She presented what seemed to be a fair summary of Nierenberg’s views, and in fact I was quite convinced that he was RIGHT (particularly in his emphasizing that only global co-operation would suffice for this global problem, and that this indeed would be unlikely–a question that alarmists would prefer not to discuss).
Hmm, not sure what happened, and a search doesn’t bring up the page I was trying to link to.
However, Nicolas Nierenberg’s home page has links to his blog, his peer reviewed refutation, the 1983 report, and William Connolley’s critique of Oreske.
No doubt Oreske can speak and write convincingly, or she wouldn’t have the position she does. “Seems to be a fair summary” seems to indicate you did no searching for criticism of the paper.
I am puzzled how these poor climate scientists become exposed to so much “contrarian” propaganda. The public media do not disseminate it, with the exception of a few notable journalists such as Delingpole and Booker, so they are unlikely to stumble across it by accident. So they going out seeking it, visiting blogs like this.
I’d like to hear what Lewanowsky and his co-conspirators would have to say about scientists who actively seek sceptical views.
Wow, great point. Indeed, how do the authors know so much about it?
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
If you believe 1984 is a bible not a warning…you may need to call for the white coats.
“It seems reasonable to conclude that the pressure of climate contrarians has contributed, at least to some degree, to scientists re-examining their own theory, data and models“.
That’s how sciences supposed to work.
Hilarious – now that scientific opinion is starting to shift, Lew puts it down to pathology.
Scientists better hurry up getting a grip. I’d already like to shut down all government science, it’s not worth the funding as they all seem to be a little too keen on feeding at the taxpayer’s trough and keep their little mouths shut in the face of blatant crackpottery. Well most of them anyway.
The irony of Cook or Lew attempting to teach others how to “think critically”….
Thanks a LOT Aphan.
I hope to be able to stop laughing long enough to eat my dinner at some point.
🙂
University of Bristol, enough said. Like the University of East Anglia, it’s a place to go to when your grades aren’t good enough to be accepted on Oxford, Cambridge or countless other more desirable Universities.
The idea that ‘global warming has stopped’ has been promoted in contrarian blogs and media articles for many years, and ultimately the idea of a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has become ensconced in the scientific literature, including in the latest assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Is he actually trying to say that somehow the “idea” of a pause has migrated from contrarian blogs to scientific literature and that even the venerable IPCC is repeating this ‘contrarian myth’? How does this guy keep getting published? Vanity press? And how in Gaia’s name can his school stand behind this sort of claptrap? And yet, somehow, we’re the ones portrayed as the kooks!
According to NASA/GISS data released this year…
Global temperature trends
1901-1950: +0.17°F per decade
1951-2000: +0.19°F per decade
2001-2014: +0.15°F per decade
CONUS temperature trends
1901-1950: +0.19°F per decade
1951-2000: +0.19°F per decade
2001-2014: −0.34°F per decade
Alaska temperature trends according to NCDC
1901-1950: −0.2°F per decade
1951-2000: +0.5°F per decade
2001-2014: −1.2°F per decade
So much for skepticism. It has led to the unfortunate situation where Australian scientists have had to admit the radio waves they discovered from outer space, around the time they were putting in their research proposals for big grants to further investigate the matter, were actually created by their micro wave cooker during lunch hour. Apparently every time the door of the cooker opened, signals from outer space arrived.
In announcing the contact with outer space, an excited Australian climate scientist told reporters that this proved the validity of the science predicting catastrophic global warming!
How about: global warming has “stopped”.
Oops – already used – several times, and that’s what they are fighting against: have to stop the stop talk.
How can they get this junk published. It perfectly fits the definition of pseudoscience as articulated by Karl Popper and others. It is based on nothing but assumptions and speculation regarding psychological mechanisms which cannot be accurately assessed and which could be explained better by other mechanisms. For example, maybe some climate scientists are waking up to the fact that there are many findings that contradict the CAGW narrative and they are beginning to act like scientists again instead of advocates. One reason that the pause matters is the CAGW champion Trenberth published a paper indicating that 17 years without warming would indicate problems with the models and our understanding of the climate system. Even the terms pause and hiatus are unscientific. We cannot know what the climate will do next. It speaks volumes that climate scientists vigorously, even angrily, defend data that is less and less convincing with regard to CAGW. Real scientists are skeptical about their own work and seek reasons why their interpretations may be wrong. Some climate scientists do this, but they are afraid to publish or submit grant applications in opposition to the CAGW narrative; just ask Judith Curry. She was able to withstand the onslaught because of her long and distinguished career in climate science, but younger non-tenured researchers are clearly reluctant to express doubts that many of them have. The point is doubting CAGW is rational and based on data. Explaining this does not require psychological explanations.
Steve May,
Prof. Irving Langmuir wrote and spoke in the 1950’s about “Pathological Science”. ‘Dangerous man-made global warming’ fits his definition perfectly. MMGW may exist, but if so it is too minuscule to measure, and thus it is no different than the Allison Effect, or ‘N-Rays’, or ESP, or many other supposed scientific effects that collapsed upon close scrutiny. If an effect cannot be measured, it must be disregarded by scientists; data is everything in science, and measurements are data. MMGW has never been quantified by any measurements.
You can read Dr. Langmuir’s dissertations on pathological science here.
Langmuir’s symptoms of pathological science include:
1. The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent [think: CO2] of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause [CO2=CAGW]
2. The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability [no MMGW measurements/data]; or, many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results [18+ years and counting…]
3. Claims of great accuracy [claims confounded by the ‘pause’]
4. Fantastic theories contrary to experience [runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, caused by a tiny trace gas that has been 20X higher in the past without causing the predicted effects]
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses thought up on the spur of the moment [this describes the alarmists’ excuses to all of their predictions failing]
6. The ratio of supporters to critics rises up to somewhere near 50% and then falls gradually to oblivion [the public is now turning on the alarmists. Once the public stops believing, they will never again listen to cries of “Wolf!!”]
There is nothing new under the sun. Prof. Langmuir would know exactly what’s happening today with the “carbon” scare.
Steve, it is not pseudo science, it is political propaganda, a la Lysenko.
I really resent that because I am a “skeptic”, Lewandowsky implies that I believe the moon landings were staged. I accuse Lewandowsky of being a 9/11 truther. So there.
Do these “scientist dispute the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomaly dataset? It’s time to display this graphic of the “pause” or the “stop”:
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/05/05/global-warming-pause-expands-to-new-record-length-no-warming-for-18-years-5-months/
Do these two “scientists” even look at any data? Do they have any scientific proof that this data is wrong?
If a person invited Lewandowsky and Oreskes to a dinner party, …
… how long would it be before the rest of guests excused themselves with a flimsy excuse but in reality because they feared for their life with these two nutbars so close to them.
5 minutes tops.
I’m out-a-there in less than that.
Bill-if a friend of mine invited Lewandowsky and Oreskes to the same dinner party they invited me to, I’d have a sudden opening in the friend department. 🙂
6 May: Vice: Writers, Scientists, and Climate Experts Discuss How to Save the World from Climate Change
#1: HAVE FEWER KIDS
by Alan Weisman, writer
…Overpopulation isn’t just another environmental problem: It’s the one that underlies all others. Without so many humans using so much more stuff with each new generation, expelling waste and CO2 that don’t go away, there wouldn’t even be environmental problems—nor an Anthropocene.
Fortunately, it’s the easiest (and cheapest) problem to solve, both technically and socially—and without resorting to anything so drastic as China’s reviled one-child policy. And doing so will bring unexpected economic dividends, ease injustice, and counter climate change faster than anything else we know…
(Alan Weisman is the author of The World Without Us and Countdown)
#3 MAKE PEOPLE BETTER
Ken Caldeira, climate scientist
#4 FREE THE ENERGY MARKET
Naomi Oreskes, climate historian
Instating a carbon tax, eliminating subsidies, and eliminating environmental exemptions: These measures alone would go a long way toward creating a true free market that would enable renewables to compete on more equal footing.
#5 EMBRACE GEOENGINEERING
David Keith, climate-policy expert.
David Keith is a professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and a professor at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard…
ETC
http://www.vice.com/read/sos-0000653-v22n5
“overstate uncertainty ”
Yet they are 99% certain.
“The public has a right to be informed about risks, even if they are alarming.”
And when have they ever informed the public about climate-change risks that were not alarming?