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.
Izaak Walton August 15, 2019 at 1:31 am
The error is not in the facts but in the procedure. What they’ve done is this:
1. They selected a bunch of climate scientists who publish a whole lot in the journals.
2. They selected another group of climate scientists on other grounds, including public appearances.
3. They proudly announced that the first group is cited more frequently in the journals than the second group … well, yeah …
4. They also sadly announced that the first group doesn’t get the media exposure the second group gets.
Well, duh … given those selection criteria, just what did they expect to find? That’s the error, not an error of fact, but an error of ridiculously bad procedures.
In part, this is why I write for WUWT … because my words here get read by thousands and thousands of people, both laymen and scientists, while the pieces I’ve published in the journals get read by a few specialists. And since I’m not interested in my place in scientific history and I am interested in affecting the ongoing climate discussion both among laymen and scientists alike, I publish here.
The ugly part is their conclusion, which is that people who disagree with their revealed wisdom should not get so much media exposure … that’s a blatant attempt at censorship which has no place in science. If they feel that their side needs equal air time, the solution is not to reduce my air time.
The solution is for them to up their game and to increase their own air time.
Next, in this paper they are ignoring the elephant in the room, which are the Al Gores and the Greta Thunbergs and all of the media talking heads and the government publicity organs and the schools and universities which day and night churn out alarmist screeds and hyped claims of impending Thermageddon … in fact, all of the big guns are on their side, and they want to silence what little media exposure that skeptics get? I’m amazed, given that they have the big dollars and the governments and the schools and the media on their side, that they haven’t been able to convert people to their cause.
Which is a measure of just how bad their “science” actually is …
Finally, upon re-reading this, I see that once again they are acting like the real issue is a communications problem. They are claiming that their side is unable to get their message out to the public because we are able to better communicate our claims.
But communication, poor or otherwise, is not the issue.
The real issue is that their science is far too often a joke. Look at the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that have been taken apart and destroyed here on WUWT. Look at the endless claims that we’ve gotten over the last 30 years that if we don’t act within 10 years we’re doomed. Look at the Malthusian madness that they are propagating. Look at the bogus claims of 50 million climate refugees by 2010. Look at the stupidity of claiming that coral atolls would be drowned by rising seas when Darwin himself showed that they are created by rising seas, and modern measurements show that atolls are either stable or growing in area. Look at the endless predictions of doom that have not come true. Heck, look at this crappy peer-reviewed paper we’re discussing here, for that matter.
THAT is the problem, that their scientific claims and serial doomcasts are way out over their skis and do not stand up to scientific scrutiny … and in response, they think that the media should act to reduce the amount of scrutiny by reducing our airtime. Yeah, that’s totally legit …
Buncha damn cowards, if you ask me. As I said above, if they actually believed what they are selling and had the science to back it up, there would be no need for these endless attempts to shut up their scientific opponents.
Anyhow, Izaak, that’s a short recap of the errors they made.
Regards to all,
w.
“Buncha damn cowards, if you ask me. As I said above, if they actually believed what they are selling and had the science to back it up, there would be no need for these endless attempts to shut up their scientific opponents.”
That’s exactly right! Good post, Willis.
Maybe a dumb question, because i was too lazy to read the Nature Comm article, but do they distinguish between positive and negative citations in the media? If all of the cites of skeptics are negative and all the cites of “climate scientists” are positive, then why are they griping?
Doxxing, when you want ignorant folks to do your violence for you. Did you really think any of these whackos were going to back off, especially based on “science”? They are coming to wipe you out, period.
“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.”
Pravda and Lysenkoism aint cutting through with the masses and their damn smartphones anymore so we better do something quick before the deplorables start kicking down our Wall.
Take a look at a real outrage regarding rejecting a paper submitted by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., CCM, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, Montana, USA.
PREPRINT: Human CO2 has little effect on atmospheric CO2
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/contradictions-to-ipccs-climate-change-theory/
Latest version of this paper
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-emissions-have-little-effect-on-atmospheric-co2/
Human CO2 Has Little Effect On Atmospheric CO2
Note: Please see my latest version of this paper that will soon be published here:
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-emissions-have-little-effect-on-atmospheric-co2/
On April 1, 2019, the American Journal of Climate Change rejected my paper for the following reason:
The conclusion of this paper is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community. […there you have it, conform to the “consensus” or you don’t get published …can we all say CENSORSHIP?]
Yes, it is. But the journal did not forward any evidence that there is an error in my paper and did not acknowledge that my paper proves the “consensus” is wrong. So, if it is unacceptable to publish a paper that contradicts the “consensus” how can there be progress in science?
Richard Courtney and Hermann Harde have sent emails stating they were reviewers and that they strongly recommended publication.
Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., CCM
Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, Montana, USA
“The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.” – Albert Einstein
TEWS_Pilot ,
I have discussed Dr. Ed’s work on his own blog, including his latest version, without getting a “consensus” with him. He makes the same errors as too many skeptics before him: ignoring that a small one-way addition of CO2 by humans can overwhelm the earth’s net sink capacity, not seeing the difference between residence time (which is a matter of two-way circulation) and relaxation (which is a matter of one-way removal).
Additional, he uses the residence time in opposite way as intended, here my comment on his blog:
The formula that you use in general is to calculate the residence time:
residence time = mass / throughput (or input or output once in equilibrium).
For the current atmosphere that gives:
410 ppmv / 98 ppmv/year = 4.2 years
For the residence time it doesn’t matter in what direction the flows are going: as long as that is trough the atmosphere that adds to the throughput in the above formula.
You can use the opposite formula if and ONLY IF all flows are unidirectional. The problem is that the main CO2 fluxes are seasonal and for ocean surface and vegetation each other’s opposite. And opposite over the hemispheres.
That means that the the bulk of the outputs are NOT caused by the CO2 pressure in the atmosphere, as that only shows a small change around an average (globally +/- 5 ppmv/season mostly in the NH), but by the huge seasonal temperature changes in both ocean surface and vegetation.
That Richard Courtney and Hermann Harde support the publication is no wonder: they both are skeptics with similar ideas. That the publication is rejected for pulication is no wonder too: on this point (and only this), the “consensus” is right: humans are responsible for the bulk of the 115 ppmv increase of CO2 in the atmosphere since about 1850. Every single observation supports that…
Your argument in favor of denying Dr. Ed Berry the opportunity to publish his theory, as well as the official reason given for rejection of Dr. Ed Berry’s paper, uses circular logic, but at least you showed the courtesy of posting your scientific opinion of what you found to be in error in the paper. Those who rejected it did so only on the basis that it did not support the “consensus,” which is really not a consensus at all as you can see by the growing number of “skeptics.”
He says in his paper that the “consensus” and the “science” on which it is built are wrong. The paper is rejected because it does not support the consensus, and you say that rejection is a proper response and then show how the “consensus” proves his theory is wrong….the very “consensus” belief which his paper tries to prove wrong…that is circular logic. The paper was not rejected because it was sloppy or poorly written, it was rejected simply because it did not support the “consensus” while noting that the paper was trying to DEBUNK the “consensus.”
You also say the two individuals who recommended at least publishing the paper are wrong because THEY don’t accept the consensus. Apparently only those who accept the “consensus” are allowed to publish papers or recommend publishing other papers submitted for peer review. Isn’t that a bit like CENSORSHIP and the very OPPOSITE response that would allow science to be advanced?
Dr. Ed. Berry closed his post with this most fitting quote:
“The formulation of a problem is often more essential than its solution, which may be merely a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.” – Albert Einstein
My reply to you is still in moderation.
TEWS_Pilot,
If a paper is making errors in rather essential parts of it, it still can be published (as good as the paper in Nature Communications which is the subject here), but it does harm to the publication, as it gets a lot of critique and ultimately should be (or gets) retracted.
While the formulation of the editors is nonsense (not publishing because of not agreeing with the “consensus”), they should have it peer reviewed by someone of the “consensus” and then decide if it is ready for publication or should be rejected.
I don’t like any “consensus”, as that is not science, but I have published here on WUWT several parts of why, in my opinion, humans are responsible for the CO2 increase in the atmosphere (just search for my name). That is reflected in following page on my family pages:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_origin.html
As I have had similar discussions with Richard Courtney and saw similar errors in Harde’s work, these two will of course not reject Dr. Berry’s work, but then one makes the same mistake as (too) many within the “consensus”: “peer review” gets “pal review”…
Being skeptic on many points from the “consensus”, doesn’t imply that the majority of the “consensus” is wrong in every point: accepting that humans are responsible for the recent increase of CO2 doesn’t mean one must accept that CO2 has a huge effect on climate, which is where the real debate is…
About Einstein’s quote: in my opinion, Dr. Berry already started with an upside down formulation of the problem, which makes all following reasoning problematic…
Taking your assertion to its logical conclusion, NOTHING should ever be published lest it eventually be retracted. Isn’t that why pencils were made with erasers and keyboards were made with a DELETE function? How does an out-of-the-mainstream idea ever see the light of day? Look at how many accepted laws and principles started off as direct contradictions of the status quo and even opened completely new fields of study. I’m of the opinion that a paper should stand or fall on its MERITS, not on whether it agrees with the “Consensus.” Which is more important to the advancement of science, not publishing what might have been a new “Theory of Relativity” to avoid the UNCERTAIN POSSIBILITY of having to publish an embarrassing retraction someday or taking a chance that even a bad paper can create interest and even spark another new idea?
This image from WUWT pretty well sums up the value of “consensus” as relates to advancing science.
TEWS_Pilot,
If some idea is new, it should be published, no matter the consensus about that subject.
My point is that
1. Dr. Berry’s idea is not new.
2. Makes essential errors even at the start by using an upside down definition of the residence time.
3. Violates several observations, including the conservation of mass.
4. It violates Henry’s law, which implies a level in the atmosphere which is directly in ratio to the level in the oceans and depending of the temperature of the ocean surface. That level is completely independent of the input flows: zero flows for a static sample and in steady state (input = output) once the equilibrium is reached for the global oceans.
If I had been a peer reviewer, I should have recommended rejection of the paper, not because of contrary to the “consensus”, but because of too many essential errors, where the “consensus” in this case (and only this case…) is right…
Everything you said may be true…perhaps Galileo and Copernicus and Einstein and thousands of lesser known pioneers also heard similar reasons for having some of their out-of-the-mainstream ideas rejected. Who knows how many of them were correct after all, we only know about paradigm-changing ideas submitted by the three I mentioned by name.
The consensus says Dr. Berry’s paper is based on all sorts of flawed “science,” but wasn’t that the reason he submitted it. I will leave it at that. I have dragged this sub string off topic too long.
Bonus: Since DeSmogBlog is mentioned, and some readers may not know their credentials, this is who they are:
“DeSmogBlog Project”
https://www.desmogblog.com/about
Credentials
Jim Hoggan — owner of the Vancouver PR firm Hoggan & Associates….PR FIRM!!! HA, HA, REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE SOURCE….NOT!
Brendan — Executive Director and Managing Editor. He is also a FREELANCE WRITER…FREELANCE because NOBODY WILL HIRE HIM!!
These climate science “experts” are the “go-to” source for many CAGW Alarmists to cite to defend “GloBULL Warming” and criticize “skeptics” … a CANADIAN PR Firm whose “expert” is a “freelance writer’ because NOBODY will hire him to write for them.
Willis :
Excellent deconstruction Willis.
I apologise for using a couple of sentences from your post; they are far more succinct than my versions.
I fail to understand how the alleged researchers come up with conclusions 3 & 4.
By any sort of reality surrounding us, all of mainstream media, including journals is chock full of climate propaganda.
Whether the Arctic is melting,
Antarctica is going to flood us,
Glaciers are melting,
Sea level is going to flood us,
Polar bears are dying,
Humans cause climate change, etc.etc. etc.
Seriously, one can not watch or read the vast majority of nature related articles and frequently just in the news without running into the standard climate disaster propaganda.
How in blazes can these researchers claim that 3) Skeptics get more citations or 4) Skeptics and alarmists get equal exposure in mainstream media!?
To me, that’s a big sign of fudging. AKA Researcher introduced factual errors.
Checking the data; i.e. following their access to data clauses:
Doesn’t that sound easy?
Clicked the link. and that took me to:
Doesn’t that sound wonderful?
Again, clicking the link. and that took me to:
Say what!?
Typical, a dead end.
In any case, their data labels and their methods are selectively chosen, questionably prepared and thoroughly reprehensible.
Methinks they wanted to sell a particular message and selected their data/calculations/comparisons to achieve that message.
It seems that the whole point that Nature article is to say, regarding valid critiques of the “CAGW” theory, “Nothing to hear there. Move along.”
In other words, a list of enemies of “The Cause” to ignore before you consider what they say.
Google is blacklisting websites which raise nonPC questions, including CAGW skeptical:
https://www.facebook.com/BenSwannRealityCheck/videos/2248718018583605/
There does seem to be some truth in this, if you google CAGW most references are to Citizens Against Government Waste
The thing that cracked me up was the mention of “UC Merced”.
“Here we show via direct comparison that contrarians are featured in 49% more media articles than scientists.”
Here I present results of a short experiment to confirm the authors’ finding of media bias in favour of articles featuring climate contrarians:
Google search for Judith Curry: About 8,300,000 results;
Google search for Greta Thurnberg: About 79,600,000 results
Scientific authority my A$$!