Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Climate Etc.
Posted on August 14, 2019 by curryja
The latest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, published by Nature.
There is a new paper published in Nature, entitled Discrepancies in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians.
Abstract. We juxtapose 386 prominent contrarians with 386 expert scientists by tracking their digital footprints across ∼200,000 research publications and ∼100,000 English-language digital and print media articles on climate change. Projecting these individuals across the same backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and scientific authority, and identifying organization patterns within their association networks. Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.
.
This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal. The major methodological problems and dubious assumptions:
.
- Category error to sort into contrarians and climate scientists, with contrarians including scientists, journalists and politicians.
- Apart from the category error, the two groups are incorrectly specified, with some climate scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.
- Cherry picking the citation data of top 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, among others (p 12 of Supplemental Information)
- Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist group DeSmog as a legitimate basis for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’
- Assumption that scientific expertise on the causes of climate change relates directly to the number of scientific citations.
- Assumption that it would be beneficial for the public debate on climate change for the ‘unheard’ but highly cited climate scientists to enter into the media fray.
- Assumption that scientists have special authority in policy debates on climate change
The real travesty is this press release issued by UC Merced:
.
“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen said. “By tracking the digital traces of specific individuals in vast troves of publicly available media data, we developed methods to hold people and media outlets accountable for their roles in the climate-change-denialism movement, which has given rise to climate change misinformation at scale.”
.
Etc.
.
Here is the list of ‘contrarians’ identified in the paper [link]
.
I am included prominently on the list, presumably arising from the DeSmog hit piece on me.
From the press release: “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.” Some of the prominent, currently active climate scientists on the list whose work I have learned from:
- Roy Spencer
- Richard Lindzen
- John Christy
- Roger Pielke Jr
- Roger Pielke Sr
- Richard Tol
- Ross McKitrick
- Nir Shaviv
- Garth Paltridge
- Nicola Scafetta
- Craig Loehle
- Scott Denning
- Nils Axel Morner
- William Cotton
- Vincent Courtillot
- Hendrik Tennekes
Note that this list of climate science ‘contrarians’ is heavily populated by experts in climate dynamics, i.e. how the climate system actually works.
The most comical categorization on this list is arguably Scott Denning, who strongly supports the IPCC Consensus, and gave a talk to this effect at an early Heartland Conference. Ironically, Scott Denning tweeted this article, apparently before he realized he was on the list of contrarians.
The list also includes others (academic or not) with expertise on at at least one aspect of climate science (broadly defined), from whom I have learned something from either their publications or blog posts or other public presentations:
- Sebastian Luning
- Michael Kelly
- Bjorn Lomborg
- Christopher Essex
- Alex Epstein
- Fritz Vahrenholt
- Scott Armstrong
- Willie Soon
- Steve McIntyre
- Anthony Watts
- Patrick Michaels
- Edward Wegman
- Matt Ridley
- Patrick Moore
- David Legates
- Craig Idso
- Chip Knappenberger
- William Happer
- Henrik Svensmark
- Steven Goddard
- Madhav Kandekhar
- Jennifer Marohasy
- William Briggs
- Hal Doiron
- Freeman Dyson
- Iver Giaver
- JoAnn Nova
I would not seek to defend everything that each of these individuals has written or spoken on the topic of climate change, but they have added to our knowledge base and provide interesting perspectives. Why shouldn’t they get media coverage if something that they write about is of general interest and stands up to scrutiny?
The ‘real’ scientists on their list with heaviest media impact include:
- Donald Wuebbles
- Ramanathan
- Stephen Schneider
- Thomas Stocker
- Noah Diffenbaugh
- Miles Allen
- Kerry Emanuel
- Phil Jones
- Chris Jones
- Stefan Rahmstorf
- Andrew Weaver
- Kevin Trenberth
- Michael Mann
Does anyone think these scientists don’t get enough publicity in the MSM?
Katherine Hayhoe (with HUGE MSM presence) doesn’t make this list; is anyone concerned about her outsized Kardashian Index?
Comparing elephants and peanuts
The most ridiculous thing that this article does is compare the media hits of contrarians that are politicians or journalists with that of ‘consensus scientists’. In the list of contrarians, the following are politicians and journalists that I regard as being generally knowledgable of climate science:
- Marc Morano
- Rex Tillerson
- David Rose
- Mark Steyn
- Matt Ridley
- Nigel Lawson
- Christopher Booker
- Ronald Bailey
- Andrew Montford
- Rupert Darwall
Lets face it, these individuals are relatively small potatoes in terms of climate change main stream media. Compare the media impact of the above list with
- Al Gore
- Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez
- Greta Thunberg
- Etc.
The ignorance of climate change of AOC and Greta is rather shocking. Why isn’t anyone concerned about this?
JC reflections
Apart from the rank stupidity of this article and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does substantial harm to climate science.
Climate science is a very broad and diffuse science, encompassing many subfields. Each of these subfields is associated with substantial uncertainties, and when you integrate all these fields and attempt to project into the future, there are massive uncertainties and unknowns. There are a spectrum of perspectives, especially at the knowledge frontiers. Trying to silence or delegitimize any of these voices is very bad for science.
Scientists who are effective in the public communication of climate change can speak about topics beyond their own personal expertise. This requires a different set of skills from basic research: ability to synthesize and assess a broad body of research and communicate effectively. Scientists on the ‘contrarian’ list bring something further to the table: fact checking alarming statements; concerns about research integrity; thinking outside the box and pushing the knowledge frontier of climate science beyond AGW – issues that are important to the MSM and public communication of climate science.
The harm that this paper does to climate science is an attempt to de-legitimize climate scientists (both academic and non academic), with the ancillary effects of making it more difficult to get their papers published in journals (stay tuned for my latest engagement with the journal peer review process, coming later this month) and the censorship of Nir Shaviv by Forbes (hopefully coming later this week).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I would put all these people above the Smarts of the Michael Mann crowd about climate and global warming etc.:
Roy Spencer
John Christy
Nils Axel Morner
Willie Soon
Anthony Watts
Dr Patrick Moore
JoAnn Nova
Marc Morano
Mark Steyn
Don’t forget, Tony Heller
Judith likes to stay in a bit with the establishment.
Two words Judith might like to think about every morning:
– appeasement folly –
On the bigger stage, coal, oil/gas, meat and airline industries will increasingly regret their appeasement.
Stand against evil now; time is running out . . .
Where do they get such nonsense from? This is another ”study” with the conclusion pre established. It was never going to end any other way.
So how come ,Greta is a household name, with much influence on the policy makers? How come, every news bulletin or headline about Climate change, is loaded with scaremongering? For the general public, who do not follow the studies and research, the only information they have is entirely from the alarmist camp. There is never a media report covering what Profs. Lindzen or Curry etc have to say. Several erroneous reports are made with prominent World wide coverage, but never retracted so publicly when they crumble.
Yes, everyone knows Greta, but they don’t know the Lindzens and Currys, who have spent lifetimes of dedicated study and research, only to be classified as ”contrarians” (???) This is not the fault of the Good professors. Just the deliberate work of the various media, to discredit them personally and professionally. It’s the alternative to having to debate the issues instead.
The „contrarians“, a remarkable list of scientists who are not members of the
International Pea-brained Cargocult Club !
I see that the late Stephen Schneider is in the list. Why aren’t people like the late Bob Carter and the late John Daley in the list too?
Wasn’t Stephen Schneider also one of the scientists predicting ‘global cooling’ back in the ’70’s?
Yup – He’s the real poster boy – Braying about “global cooling” AND “global warming,” and blaming BOTH on human fossil fuel emissions. According to him, whatever happens, it must be “our” fault.
Good point. I was still feeling slightly stunned/gobsmacked that something like this would get published by Nature, even in today’s climate.
But once you realize they are selectively picking, choosing and citing from the opinions of dead people, it suddenly becomes quite funny.
Bob Carter is #17 on the list. John Daley is not on the list.
This article in Nature reveals the really DARK SIDE in the climate debate and its manipulation of the media to further its political agenda to bend the minds of those too busy or lazy to delve into the facts. It is akin to the 97% Meme which has been so successful; similarly riddled with deliberate falsity of assumptions and implied conclusions masked by a veneer of purported science and statistical veracity.
Very disappointed I have not been included in the list of Contrarians🤧
While I would prefer “skeptics”, “contrarians” sound better than “deniers”.
Judith Curry is to be commended on her use of clear language. As one, whose specialization has been in languages, I am frustrated by the designation “climate science.” This is a discipline unlike botany and biology, geography and oceanography, chemistry and physics, mathematics and statistics which each have a particular area of focus. In one particular paragraph – the best in the article – Curry helps me move towards a clarification and description of what climate science is. I may strictly speaking be a geologist or zoologist but never in a strict sense be an expert in climate science – at best I can be a scientist studying particular aspects of climate and dependent on a variety of other sciences. This subject deserves to be looked at in a detailed essay beginning with the paragraph I want to highlight:
“Climate science is a very broad and diffuse science, encompassing many subfields. Each of these subfields is associated with substantial uncertainties, and when you integrate all these fields and attempt to project into the future, there are massive uncertainties and unknowns. There are a spectrum of perspectives, especially at the knowledge frontiers. Trying to silence or delegitimize any of these voices is very bad for science.”
Climate ‘science’ is the study of an average of averages.
(Author) Professor LeRoy Westerling
Ph.D. Economics and International Affairs, January 2000
Joint Degree of the Department of Economics and the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Fields: Environmental Economics, Insurance, Applied Econometrics, Comparative Policy Analysis.
B.A. International Economics/Chinese Studies, December 1987
Department of Economics, University of California, Los Angeles. Fields: International Economics, Development Economics, Finance, Chinese Studies.
Hey, don’t knock his creds; not fair. He has a climate observatory like this in his back yard that he’s studied for years, so he’s well-qualified.
http://www.da-woody.com/SA/1219631609gVnWXVg%20(2).jpg
With so many contrarians listed, what do these numbers do to the infamous 97% agreement claim?
My first thought, lol.
“What tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”
From the article: “Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out of professional mainstream sources by the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale.”
So what they are really describing is that the 49 percent figure refers to internet blogs where climate change is discussed, and skeptics figure prominently on these blogs much more so than alarmist scientists. That would be because alarmist scientists don’t post on skeptic blogs because every time they do their arguments get destroyed so they have learned not to come on skeptic blogs with their BS (bad science) where they will be humiliated.
From the article: “These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.”
Well, the alarmist climate scientists are more than welcome to exert their authority on WUWT. But they better come with a good argument. Which they don’t have, so don’t expect any of them to be doing much exerting on WUWT.
Here’s something the alarmist climate scientists could do to change the game: Give us just one piece of evidence supporting the CAGW speculation. Just one. How hard can that be?
But, as you will see, no alarmist will offer even one little bit of evidece because of this challenge. That would be because they don’t have even one little bit of evidence. All they have is speculation and a fraudulent Hockey Stick chart. Watch, and see the truth.
It is obvious the intent of the quoted “49% more” figure is to give the impression to readers that “contrarians” have much greater visibility to the general public than “scientists”. (Of course you have to ignore the illogical and confounding overlapping definitions of those two groups.)
This notion is amply reinforced by the last paragraph of the article:
(my emphasis)
Some assertions can’t pass the “lyin’ eyes” test (as in “who do you believe, me or your lyin’ eyes”?). This most certainly is one of those.
As noted, who in that publication’s readership actually believes “contrarians” (scientists or not) get more visibility than their definition of “scientists”?
(Of course, if one includes non scientists on the contrarian side you have to include non scientists on the “consensus” side – Greta, Gore, AOC et al.)
“Here we show via direct comparison that real scientists are featured in 49% more media articles than “climate activists” who are “scientists” in name only. Yet when comparing visibility in mainstream media sources only, we observe just a 1% excess visibility, which objectively demonstrates the unbalanced, propaganda pushing bias of professional mainstream sources as compared with the comparatively balanced and level-headed information being made available via the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the correction of the vast swamp of professional mainstream sourced climate change disinformation.”
There, fixed it for ’em.
From the article: “From the press release: “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.”
It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t take an expert in climate science to tell that the arguments for CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) have not been established as facts. It doesn’t take an expert to realize the climate alarmists don’t have any evidence to back up their claims.
All one has to do is challenge an alarmist climate scientist to provide evidence to back up their claims. How about it, Alarmists? Can you provide even one piece of evidence backing up your CAGW claims?
The answer will be no/silence. It doesn’t take a climate scientists to understand what this silence means. It means they don’t have an answer to the central question of CAGW. Lots of speculation, no evidence.
I haven’t read the paper, but I would suspect that the coverage of the “contrarians” in the media was negative whereas coverage of the supporters was positive.. So it doesn’t matter that they were covered 49% more, the coverage was more likely negative.
The Climate Liars are losing, and they know it. Consequently, they are becoming more and desperate to climatesplain why they are losing. It is laughably pathetic.
Am I right that the authoritative, widely respected Nature, along with Scientific American, were irreparably tarnished back in ‘09 by the Climategate hockey stick fraud? On another tack, Mark Steyn’s book ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ had 100 prestigious scientists excoriating Mikey Mann. How do those names stack up here, I wonder? Are they all contrarians? Mark records some surprise by people at some of his names who were from the alarmist camp.
Who, other than a religious fruitcake, uses the word “contrarian”?
They want to portray skeptics as stubborn and unmovable.
Skeptics just want a little evidence for all those claims we keep seeing. If we get some evidence, we will move. Facts are facts. We will move. But you have to give us the facts first. This hasn’t happened yet with respect to CAGW.
They should show a direct carbon footprint comparison. Not that I think CF is meaningful (apart from pointint out rank hypocrisy)…
This paper (which I have to confess I only gave a cursory reading) compares “citations” in MSM and non-MSM of “climate scientists” and “contrarians”. Note the implication that if you’re a “contrarian” you can’t be a “scientist”.
What it conspicuously omits to say is that the majority of climate-change articles that I’ve seen in the MSM (a small sample since I don’t watch TV at all, and don’t listen to the radio that much) don’t actually “cite” anyone by name. Once you go to the broader coverage that doesn’t include “citations” then alarmist articles outnumber skeptical articles by a HUGE factor.
Plus, vast numbers of MSM articles that aren’t actually “about” climate change manage to mention it in passing. And it’s always brought in as the demonic force behind anything “bad” and of course “bad” things are what mainstream news media thrive on (as much as they’re thriving in the internet age).
It’s a total red herring.
Just another example of “I’ll make my opinion look more important and more scientific than your opinion”.
Trouble is, the sheep eat this stuff up incapable of understanding it isn’t real.
“Selection of scientists (CCS)
We ranked individuals’ publication profiles according to the net citations Ci=∑i∈pcp
calculated by summing individual article citation totals (cp) for only the individual articles (indexed by p) included within our WOS CC dataset. In this way, the CCS group is comprised of the 386 most-cited CC scientists, based solely on their CC research.”
Does bad research result in more corrections, therefore more citations?
What can one expect given how most journasl flaunt their “Impact Factors.”
“Because we are comparing the most prominent members from each group,…..”
They need a control group. Go back and do this for “Eugenics.”
Communication is now an essential discipline all scientists must master.
https://www.americanscientist.org/blog/from-the-staff/self-education-in-science-communication
“we developed methods to hold people and media outlets accountable for their roles”
Not only is this a venomous pseudoscience publication, but they are taking credit for something that fanatics and communists developed long ago.
One doesn’t have to be a science expert to be able to distinguish evidence/fact from speculation. If you can think logically, you can figure out one from the other.
Speculation is guessing. Evidence/fact is something observed.
Instead of “Abstract”, that section should have been labeled “Summary: How to wrap propaganda in the cloak of science and mathematics for the gullible public”
On the downside as a scientist I am actually quite shocked to see this sort of drivel published in a supposedly reputed journal.
On the upside I think it is symptematic of a desperate bunch of alarmists who are trying a last ditch attempt to silence the ‘skeptics’ who seem to be growing in number.
The funny thing is that as this drags out it is actually nature itself who is turning out to be the most vocal critic as many people are now looking at the staggering amount of alarmist headlines and thinking that this is not what they observe.
I am even more motivated to keep pushing the contrarian view.
Bill Nye the anti science guy is one of the media’s favorite’s………..maybe 2nd after only Gore, who earned his doctorate in charlatanism.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/13/entertainment/bill-nye-global-warming-video/index.html
http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2015/01/bill-nye-drops-ball-on-deflategate.html
Nye doesn’t even understand the ideal gas law for Pete’s sake………..but is a wonderful interview that makes for great tv drama/sensationalism as an actor that uses basic knowledge about science and notoriety from a kids tv science program to impose his anti science, political agenda on uneducated viewers as he is blatantly misrepresented as a climate expert.
This is one of the many quintessential examples of contradicting this papers assumption that the media attention is weighted towards the know nothing skeptics/contrarians vs keepers of the secret climate science secrets.
How about………….it’s the exact opposite!