Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Guardian reports that discussions of climate policy are being displaced by “attacks” on climate science.
Naturally the Guardian, and the authors of the study, blame a conspiracy of climate skeptics, rather than considering other possibilities, such as legitimate doubts raised by the Climategate fiasco, and the utter inability of climate scientists to get any predictions right.
According to The Guardian;
Era of climate science denial is not over, study finds
Conservative thinktanks in the US engaging in climate change have increased their attacks on science in recent years, a study of 16,000 documents finds.
Is organised climate science denial finished?
After global heat records were continually broken over the last decade, and as sea levels rose and scientists reported the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets, you might be forgiven for thinking the debate over climate change had shifted.
No more arguing over the science? It’s more about the policy now, right?
Well, wrong. At least according to a new study that has looked at 15 years worth of output from 19 conservative “thinktanks” in the United States.
“We find little support for the claim that ‘the era of science denial is over’ – instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period,” the study concludes.
The conservative thinktanks under the microscope are the main cog in the machinery of climate science denial across the globe, pushing a constant stream of material into the public domain.
Sadly the main study is paywalled, but the following is the abstract of the study;
Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt
Highlights
- Think-tank contrarian information has increased exponentially over 1998–2013.
- Sceptical themes are diverse and range from scientific integrity to policy.
- Science-related discourse has grown relative to policy in key sceptic organisations.
- Think-tank discourse is highly influenced by external factors.
- We generate longitudinal data on think-tank contrarian themes over a 16 year period.
Abstract
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is getting warmer and that the rise in average global temperature is predominantly due to human activity. Yet a significant proportion of the American public, as well as a considerable number of legislators in the U.S. Congress, continue to reject the “consensus view.” While the source of the disagreement is varied, one prominent explanation centres on the activities of a coordinated and well-funded countermovement of climate sceptics. This study contributes to the literature on organized climate scepticism by providing the first systematic overview of conservative think tank sceptical discourse in nearly 15 years. Specifically, we (1) compile the largest corpus of contrarian literature to date, collecting over 16,000 documents from 19 organizations over the period 1998–2013; (2) introduce a methodology to measure key themes in the corpus which scales to the substantial increase in content generated by conservative think tanks over the past decade; and (3) leverage this new methodology to shed light on the relative prevalence of science- and policy-related discussion among conservative think tanks. We find little support for the claim that “the era of science denial is over”—instead, discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period.
Read more: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378015300728
Climate alarmists frequently accuse skeptics of believing in baseless conspiracy theories, but when you read something like this, it is pretty plain which side of the climate debate is living in fantasy land.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Despite the fudging, records for cold weather were set, sea levels started rising before humans could possibly be responsible and accelerated melting of polar ice sheets is the result of dodgey calculations. You have to love the hubris that someone who wants you to accept “The Science” could ignore the obvious problems. Its a method that requires more of your time assessing what’s wrong with your own postulate than spruiking it.
“the accelerated melting of polar ice sheets”
The AMO is just starting to decline
It will be fun watching these jackasses as Arctic sea ice levels start to climb again. 🙂
I can’t find a simply ice-volume as a function of time plot of PIOMAS anymore. Its dead flat trend since Cryosat 2 went up is probably why. It doesn’t have to climb again for it to look dodgy.
cycles similar to sine curves have a sort of “plateau” on the top.
That is where the AMO is about to drop from, Its only just over the peak.
That is why the Arctic sea ice values.has been sort of level for the last few years.
(sorry, I would post a graph to show you, but my main computer died this morning)
This old compter I’m now on has a Pentium chip (anyone remember them ?), and very little software
I have no access to anything accept the very basics until I get a new computer and get it set up.
On the contrary. It’s only natural that climate publications are privately funded:
Climate science has been settled -> research funds can be allocated elsewhere.
Paris meeting saved the world from thermageddon -> politicians can focus on more important affairs.
Political Science has always baffled me, I see lots of political “scientists”(activist) mostly employed by government.
But what is the science of politics?
Politics seems completely free of any verifiable evidence or scientific method .
Case in point, every election, if there is such a science, how come none can accurately predict the winners?
Secondly if politics are enabling the “Will of the People”, how come people are not corrupt and crazy in their private lives?
Naturally I too have come to the conclusion that any past time that has to label its self “science” probably is not.
“But what is the science of politics?”
Deception.
For a list of 20-plus things that would be happening (but aren’t) if climate contrarians were actually well-organized and well-funded, see my WUWT guest-thread, “Notes from Skull Island” at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/16/notes-from-skull-island-why-skeptics-arent-well-funded-and-well-organized/
Great link … as true today as when you wrote it.
Anyone have a list of the 19 organizations?
An earlier paper (2013) by the same author here:
http://www.kenbenoit.net/pdfs/NDATAD2013/skepticism_bc2013.pdf
On the same topic and using basically the same approach lists these 15:
Organization Name Number of Documents
American Enterprise Institute (AEI) 642
Cato Institute (CEI) 301
Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) 937
Fraser Institute 63
Global Warming Policy Foundation 7,892
Heartland Institute 272
Heritage Foundation 220
Hoover Institution 24
International Climate and Environmental Change 1,784
Assessment Project (ICECAP)
George C. Marshall Institute 139
National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) 43
National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) 386
Pacific Institute 226
Reason Foundation 159
Total 13,114
David M.–
See Table 1 of the full document. Remarkably they left off their big contributor to the previous article (GWPF). The big hitter now is CO2 Science (4500 documents,along with Heartland (2900), Heritage (1650), and CEI (1450).
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Boussalis%20TExt-mining%20the%20signals%20of%20climate%20change%20doubt.pdf
Could they fear Lord Lawson?
They hold an annual jamboree where they throw another sceptic on the fire, when the truth chills their bones. 40,000 people in Paris, wanted posters, 21 years of negotiating culminated in perhaps and maybe.
discussion of climate science has generally increased over the sample period,” the study concludes.
+
Yet a significant proportion of the American public, as well as a considerable number of legislators in the U.S. Congress, continue to reject the “consensus view.”
Huh. The more it gets discussed, the more people reject it. Funny that. Better shut down the discussion in order for the consensus view to prevail. Apparently they can’t win with facts and logic.
The first sentence of the article (note their highly scientific references to Oreskes, Cook et al):
“Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that the Earth is
getting warmer and that the rise in average global temperature is
predominantly due to human activity (IPCC, 2014; National
Research Council, 2010; Oreskes, 2004; Doran and Zimmerman,
2009; Anderegg et al., 2010; Cook et al., 2013).
They ignore the survey by G. Mason U. in 2007 and by von Storch a few years later, which found about an 80% consensus. There’s another one or two with similar findings, which were mentioned prominently within the past month or so here or on Climate Etc.
Since it was too much trouble to actually read the 16,000 documents, they used a computer analysis to identify 47 “topics” and the top 5 “stemmed keywords” whatever that social scientist jargon means. Topic number 26, in its entirety, is
“26 Monckton monckton graph ppmv brenchley humankind
Certainly picked out the fundamental aspects, didn’t they?
This is a strange paper abstract. On the one hand you have the “Gaurdian” article, which seems to put words in the mouths of the Authors. The only time in the abstract they use the “D” word it is in quotes.
Also do note the name of their paper.
Text-mining the signals of climate change doubt
Doubt, a good term. not insulting or inflammatory. It would be nice to read the full paper but like must others here I’m not on Big Oil’s check mailing list. sigh
michael
Oops I didn’t read
davidmhoffer January 8, 2016 at 9:53 pm
Lance Wallace January 8, 2016 at 10:45 pm
I was being too charitable.
michael
Here are their conclusions. I think they got #3 about right (increased discussion of the science of climate change). They of course do not consider the possibility that this is because climate science might be wrong–they just look with concern at how disbelief in the science might lead to inaction on the political goals.
8. Conclusion
Our study provides the first systematic content analytic update of the climate change related literature of conservative think tanks—a critical piece of the “denial machine”—since the influential work of McCright and Dunlap (2000). Specifically, using the largest corpus of contrarian documents assembled to date, we find:
1. The overall level of CTT (conservative thinktanks) information has grown rapidly over the past decade and a half, reaching a peak during late 2009–early 2010.
2. Topics questioning the integrity of individual scientists and scientific bodies appear closer (semantically) to politics than science, suggesting that claims often considered the hallmark of scientific scepticism are rooted in politics.
3. The era of climate science denial is not over. While the aggregate results demonstrate that both policy and science discussions remain stable throughout the period of study (Fig. 2), a detailed analysis of a critical CTT (Fig. 3) and a focus on climate change-specific themes (Fig. 4) reveal the increased importance of both science and scientific integrity discussions over the sample period.
4. CTTs tend to react to the external environment—i.e., they counter claims—and thus studies focusing on narrow intervals of time (or a single organization) are likely sensitive to these contextual factors.
Tsk, most not must,
I need a new key board. With this one the keys keep changing places.
Mine does that too, especially after six or seven beer !!
Kinda scary the things that pop out of the keyboard after a 36 hour binge.
Or not.
best big for me is this quote from co-author Travis Coan:
Coan: “We are currently working on a study with John Cook that looks at science and policy related themes (amongst other items) in the top 50 climate skeptic blogs through 2015. The topic structure (i.e. discourse) is very similar, and sometimes identical, to the conservative thinktanks and there is reason to think that these two time series move together. For the blogs, we find that the increase in science-related skepticism continues right through 2015. Again, these results are preliminary, but suggest that the ‘end of science denial’ – at least among these actors – might be wishful thinking.”
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jan/07/era-of-climate-science-denial-is-not-over-study-finds
it’s ridiculous how Cook has become part of the worldwide CAGW team.
So….study….Cook…..skeptic blogs…..science policies…didn’t Fabius Maximus JUST post a really illogical, irrelevant, random article here on WUWT trying to gain support for “climate policies” this week?
I wonder if we’ll make the paper…
Cook is probably on the shortlist for next head of the IPCC…
oops..typo…meant to write: best BIT for me is this quote from co-author Travis Coan…
It is very reassuring to read that the Warmistas are becoming so concerned over the resilience of sceptical opinions growing and Climate alarmists converting to the opposition camp. It gives real hope that people are noticing the truth about the Climate Scare. It is clear which side inhabits the fantasy land.
Much of this trend is thanks to the persistence and hard work of WUWT and Anthony.
It is also significant that the authors are Constantine Boussalis of the Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin and Travis G. Coan of the Department of Politics and Exeter Q-Step Centre, University of Exeter. For them the science is all politics.
People are beginning to notice that only their gullible friends still parrot the party line.
And they are noticing that their smart friends are the ones asking tough questions…
“and as sea levels rose”
Yes, as sea levels rose, on average, at a trivial and non-accelerating rate.
They have been rising for the last 20,000 years, and previous much faster than anything we are witnessing today. About 6mm/yr on average over that period. And about 3mm/yr today perhaps.
You would have thought that people who write articles about this topic would bother to find out about the very most basic aspects of the history of the climate.
Alas, such information would now be branded as “contrarian” propaganda.
We must selected erase all knowledge of a climate history containing any variations in anything whatsoever.
Change only just started and it’s caused mainly by shady right-wing industrialist types. (sarc)
But honestly, the Grauniad is becoming more and more like Pravda with each passing day.
At the heart of this is the manner in which a normal and healthy part of science, and an actually basic requirement of good science, that is critical review is seen has bad and undesirable thing for climate ‘science’ And at the bottom of this is the knowledge that honesty critical review would take their rubbish to bits , this approch is opposed because it would show the weakness of their case , hence they say ‘why should I show you the data you only want to find things wrong with it ‘
And they are right , people do because that is the way you do good science, unquestioning obedience is a religions or political stance not one that belongs in science.
I wonder how many of the 16,000 documents were supplied by Dr Peter Gleick?
great to read reports like that- going pear shaped for them.
Just remember that back in the 1960s the Guardian was assuring its readers that the Viet Cong had nothing to do with Communism. If you favour a cause you can be tempted to make all sorts of daft statements in support of it. Some people give into the temptation. (Just look at the anti-religious comments on this website.) Nothing much changes. The Guardian, or the people who write for it, just can’t help it. That’s the way the Guardian is. And probably always will be.
They are losing the Climate War, and can’t figure out why. Their weak point was always “the science”, which is why they declared “the debate is over”, mostly refused to debate, and the few times they did, they lost, badly.
The last tactic he mentions, implying that skeptics/climate realists operate “in the shadows” and need to be dragged (kicking and screaming, no doubt) “into the light of day” is both desparate and risible. There is also the vague threat of “documenting our activities” and “calling us out”. Gee, are we frightened yet? I’m just quaking in my boots over that one. Still, it means we are over the target. Their days are numbered.
Phase II is moving along with earnest. It was never about the science, so they really don’t care. In fact, face to face discussions quickly devolve into “well, we cant burn fossils forevah”.
Scientists are stuck in the science debate while warmists are conducting a Phase II end run.
Globs of wanna be energy kings are chasing free money. If they get 10 more years of this fanfare they will make most first tier nations noncompetitive.
Only real option I see that stops them is a global economic meltdown. Even the GOP extended the rebates by 5 years (ugh). A GOP president is v unlikely to roll those back. Last thing I want to see is hard economic times to right the ship.
But the report was in The Guardian so is inherently suspect. See
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally
for how truly shoddy the reporting there is.
Re: Climate science isn’t science.
Appending Science to Climate imports as much objectivity as appending it to Creation.
In 1620 Francis Bacon invented Modern Science when he added Cause & Effect to Aristotelian science, replacing induction with real induction, which translates today to deduction. MS is strictly objective and is practiced in industry and engineering. In the ‘30s and ‘40s, Karl Popper, discarding causation and its major consequences, deconstructed MS into Post Modern Science, where scientific models are tested by three intersubjective criteria: peer review, publication, and consensus, each by certified practitioners. Popper’s followers thrive today in academia, the “publish or perish” community, and especially in physical sciences, where Climate Science is the poster child.
I hate to harp, but it’s time for this again:
Peer review as a reliable technique for assessing the validity of scientific data is surely discredited. ¶ The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet, London, UK, Med.J.Au, 2/21/00.
Horton reads equally well substituting publication or consensus for peer review.
Regardless of these intersubjective criteria, Modern Science alone judges its models according to their predictive power. Modern Science and Post Modern Science occupy center stage today, but they have mutually exclusive principles. Judging climate science by the MS criteria of predictive power is unfair: PMS models need not actually work.
Jeff writes,
“Appending Science to Climate imports as much objectivity as appending it to Creation.”
Why? Why not Evolution? That’s where the “consensus science” game got going in earnest, I am quite sure. That’s the realm that first raised it’s “science denier” head above the “common folk”, and declared that those who doubted that supposed “fact” were ruining everything for the would-be wonderland of Siants, our great and glorious savior . . if we would all just believe in it’s sacred truths . .
And the very same supposed “experts” on what science really is and is not (Nye, Dawkins, Shermer (Sagan), etc) now treat “climate change deniers” with the very same condescending contempt as they did the “Evolution deniers”. Coincidence?
It’s the same basic con, kids, I warn. The bone gazers can’t really see Evolution happening anymore than the tree ring gazers can see climate change happening, but many don’t like to be skeptical of what they’ve bit on, it seems to me.
This is funny…
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/dhm1353140/750_zpsn38gp8jz.jpg
Somewhere around 1998, the skeptics switched from policy to the science. No schist Sherlock… That’s when the models went epic fail…
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/dhm1353140/Screenshot_2016-01-09-08-33-47_zpsdcoxaexq.png
‘The Guardian’, when it was ‘The Manchester Guardian’, some 50 years ago (?), was a very good newspaper. Now it isn’t fit to tear up for use in the outhouse.
That’s why they invented “Lew paper”.