A new study is out, and the denialists of human-generated climate change are going to love it. Basically the authors of the study in question were puzzled by the level of public doubt and scepticism regarding anthropogenic climate change (ACC). As they saw it there was a “striking agreement” among scientists on the causes and process of climate change, yet somehow that consensus was not reflected in public opinion, with many people backing scientists who question the link between humans and climate change.
So this study set out to evaluate the merit of those scientists both for and against the tenets of ACC. By investigating the credibility of dissenting researchers relative to that of agreeing researchers, the authors hoped to establish which group was most trustworthy. From their analysis of 1 372 climate researchers and their publication and citation records they found that (i) 97%-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC 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.
In essence the thrust of the paper is pretty straightforward: If you’re going to listen to anyone, choose an expert. It makes sense to trust the guy (or gal) who has done the most research, who has been cited the most frequently, and who has been the most widely read and critiqued. Surely you’d choose to listen to those with the most impressive credentials, the ones most likely to be called the “experts” — and according to this study those guys are the ones linking climate change to human activities.
Studies such as these are not new, though this is the first to conduct such a large-scale quantitative assessment of those actively studying climate change. And it’s refreshing to have a set of findings so concise and clear cut. The authors show quite clearly that in terms of expertise, prominence, and experience, “[that of] climate researchers convinced by the evidence of ACC vastly overshadows that of the climate-change sceptics and contrarians”.
If you are concerned about their methodology, I urge you to read their paper. However, for the denialists among us, I suspect that no matter how rigorous their study and methodology, the findings still won’t be enough. They will continue to split hairs, under the impression that doing so undermines the entire body of research underpinning ACC. I’m sure they will also point to the fact that this study looks at the scientists, not the science, and as such it misses the point of their criticisms.
But I think that this is the value of the study in question. It establishes the scientific worth of those researching climate change, and differentiates between those worthy of being listened to, and those we should ignore. The study comes at a time where the public has been bombarded with information and research to such an extent that it is no longer able to differentiate between what is valuable and what is dribble. It is also a time where anyone can publish anything, and increasingly we are faced with a crisis of authenticity and credibility, where it’s increasingly difficult to ascertain the value of the information we receive. This problem is compounded when it comes to issues such as ACC where the research is so particular and so complex that it is beyond most people. It’s no wonder, then, that we are so confused about who to listen to, and what to believe.
And I think this is where a lot of the scepticism and doubt comes from. It’s not so much that people believe one side over the other, but rather that they don’t trust either side. They aren’t willing to involve themselves in something that seems so undecided and messy. It would be one thing if accepting ACC meant making a small donation, or making only small changes, but the fact that it requires so much of us makes choosing to accept it in the current social climate even more daunting. It’s far easier to take no sides, and do nothing — though in this case it means that things carry on down the same path.
This study, then, speaks to the level of doubt and scepticism in society at a time when our faith in science itself is shaky. Aware that stats can be so easily played with, that graphs are always up for interpretation, and that science is not always black and white, it’s refreshing to have a piece of research that says clearly “these are the people you should be listening to”. I hope it will be enough to convince a few more people. Though I suspect it will merely preach to the converted, and make denialists even more adamant.
AIDS denialists, climate change denialists – god worshippers versus atheists….
All are right and all are wrong. What is the extent of expertise and to what extent does personal bias influence the experts research? How long is a piece of string?
Even this research paper may have been conducted with a set conclusion in mind.
Its a beautiful day in Durban and I am going fishing.
Thanks, Mike – Perhaps, if sufficient numbers of people distribute knowledge of this, and argue coherently, as you do, about the merits and demerits of both positions, a critical mass will be reached sooner larger than later. We need such a critical mass before people will start acting in meaningful ways.
As always, you make a very good point.
I’m just waiting for the ‘dimwits’ to come out of the fumes again…
@Mike
I agree with your “trust issues” argument. It seems that there is a lot of propaganda out their from both sides which makes it especially difficult given that a lot of us aren’t experts.
Funny how these things work.
Hot (ok fairly hot) of the denialist camp is this article:
http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=6645
Scary stuff from an IPCC insider. He is even advocating for post-normal science and a normative agenda in physical science…
Look at the comments at the bottom too – not sure if he is entirely quoted in context, but even if not some of the stuff is scary (if not made up)…Also look at the Guardian link for a more reputed source.
I think this just underlines your “trust” argument.
sorry for the rushed response – “there” and “reputable source”
@Mike, thanks for the blog and reference.
One wonders if the bigger issue is about believers converting denialists to their way of thinking; or if it is that a change in human behaviour might(?)mitigate the undisputed consequences of climate change – regardless of its cause?
Who is able to deny that there are consequences to climate change, and that a concerted effort by all of us might, at best, do some good. At worst, a change by humans will not exacerbate or speed up the brutish and hellish consequences.
Imagine if we can short circuit this ‘geween and gekners van tande’ about who is right and who is wrong. All we need to do is (i)open our own eyes and ears to independent studies/news from around the world if we don’t want to believe the local believers; and (ii) try to dispute the fact that a simplified and downsized ‘green’(non-commercial) life is better for all of us.
Imagine the unintended consequences – we might even narrow that inequality gap a bit as we try to outdo each other in the ‘greenovation’ and downsizing department! That is if we avoid the traps the ‘green’ moneygrabbers’ have set for us.
Thanks again, you set me thinking.
Well, one thing that came out of the Climategate emails was how a very small group of likeminded scientists coluded to prevent sceptics from publishing their papers. And, of course, one has to accept the tenets of AGW in order to be ordained as a climate scientist in the first place.
Ha ha ha ha,
While you sit in your office worrying about this stuff we are all out living the good life! Why worry, you can’t change the way things are going! just build the biggest house so you have the best view for when it all goes down!!!!
I think often people become denialists simply because they have grown weary of what appears to be alarmist speculation. But, as you point out, that weariness is dangerous because it creates inaction that has little basis. I don’t think many of the people who deny ACC are actually informed denialists, rather they are just sceptical of what appears alarmist.
A good read. thanks.
The more one is published, the more one has to publish to maintain one’s “position”. Ever more important not to rock the boat. Especially if one wants tenure, funding, trips to exotic destinations (always Costa Rica cloud forests; Hawaii – never Bukina Faso…).
I took the time to look through the paper you refer to here, and for me the most interesting point was that those anti-ACC graduated on average ten years BEFORE those who are support ACC.
This means two things: 1. Anti-ACC theorists are probably closer to retirement and are looking for their last 15 minutes. 2. Most importantly, they have had an extra ten years to work on their credentials, and to develop more publications and more citations. yet despite this, their credibility relative to that of those supporting ACC, is far lower.
Just a thought.
Climategate showed that those against (or not actively for) the AGW “theory” were actively blocked from publication in many of the main journals. This would obviously bias a survey like this.
It’s like standing on the tracks wondering whether or not they serve gherkin and salami sandwiches on the train just before it hits.
@ Robard
I don’t agree with your point that “one has to accept the tenets of AGW in order to be ordained as a climate scientist in the first place”. There are obviously climate scientists that acknowledge climate change, but they just don’t link it to humans.
And, as I said, if you read through their methodology, the authors were very rigorous. Part of their explanation includes how they nullified the influence that “possible cliques” among published scientists could have on findings.
Very cool post… really makes you think. Being a scientist and all I know better than most exactly how bias science really can be especially in that most results and graphs can be interpreted in order to fit your original aims or conclusions.
However, I really feel that when it comes to climate change the vast quantity of credible literature out there is pretty conclusive with regards to human-generated climate change and the causes and process of climate change. All the denialists out there are just looking for the easy way out. It easier and lets you sleep better at night if you allow yourself to believe that we are not causing this. Everyone needs to wake-up, shoulder the blame in this and make an effort to change. It’s the only way forward at this point.
I understand the whole “trust issue” thing when it comes to science but seriously when it comes to climate change people need to put them a side and just use their common sense for once.
Thanks for the awesome blog!
In essence the thrust of the paper is pretty straightforward: If you’re going to listen to anyone, choose an expert. It makes sense to trust the guy (or gal) who has done the most research, who has been cited the most frequently, and who has been the most widely read and critiqued. – I actually do not agree. Would it not be more sensible to check the facts and decide for oneself whether they are reasonable? Charlatans can usually (generalisation) afford the best PR.
“I’m sure they will also point to the fact that this study looks at the scientists, not the science” – Gee, this also bothers me and I am not a denialist.
The fact that scientists (or were they statiticians?) would waste precious time on a study of this kind just adds one more proof to my hypothesis that we are entering the next dark ages. Science needs no “belief” it is not a religion. For the uninitiated perhaps but gee, even there, logic should prevail, shouldn’t it? I am perhaps being unreasonably optimistic of average ability but, heck, if an uneducated ex-farmer from the Eastern Cape can spot that “Things are not right with the weather” (verbatim), then surely anyone else can? I fully expect to find amulets to ward against the effect of global warming soon. Wait, we do have those already, don’t we? They’re called carbon credits.
Science by consensus of popular opinion. Cry the beloved reason…
The fact of the matter is that the facts don’t change just because an idiot greedy scientist with a personal agenda to please stumbled on the facts and reported on it, or that the well-meaning fact-finding scientist actually just didn’t take into account ALL the variables and could not therefore see the big picture.
If people could change facts, they wouldn’t be facts but fabrications. The “models” scientists refer to are just that, and real scientists do not pretend that they are anything else. They are approximations of reality, not reality. Neither do real scientists pretend that science is advanced enough to know precisely how the universe works. But, that is no excuse. For the “experts” or the non-scientists. Look around you and see the evidence for yourself. Perhaps, in addition to Math Lit., the educators should make Science Lit. mandatory at school so that the myths about science can be debunked at least in future generations.
Here is the first lessons free:
- Science is based on logic, not magic.
- Believe is not necessary and even treated with suspion but concrete, peer-reviewed proof is.
- Just saying you are a scientist does not make you so.
- peer-review means that other scientists take your theory and proof apart and kick it until your nose bleeds before you are allowed to published.
- any claim by the press that “scientists says” should be treated with total suspicion until the scientist and his paper (on the subject) found.
@HD – Why not check if he was quoted in context.
http://mikehulme.org/
Through the years I have developed a fine skill for reading between the lines and if you read this guy’s list of publications chronologically, you will perhaps also end up with a wry smile.
Why does post-normal science sounds so much like a concatenation of pass-the-buck and actually-we-discovered-we-haven’t-a-clue? (before you ask, I do know it’s dictionary definition, just saying…)
@X Cepting: “I fully expect to find amulets to ward against the effect of global warming soon. Wait, we do have those already, don’t we? They’re called carbon credits.”
LOL! That’s brilliant
The climate has changed long before any humans ever trod this earth and it will continue to change long after we’re all extinct. No scientist will dispute that truth.
@ Mike Baillie – At least by quoting this article you have shown that this whole issue is not about the science which you clearly do not care about, but rather about driving the necessary publicity to counter the growing scepticism among the general public. If the debate over global warming has to be settled based on credibility (read number of publications, not honesty) of the scientists and not their science, then it is a happy day to be a sceptic, as it goes to prove that it is down to a vote and not any scientific proof. The basic premise is that if we can’t agree, then my PhD trumps your masters degree. I work in the scientific research field. The ultimate tie-breaker is scientific proof, not credentials. I would like to see someone write an article correlating climate change publications as a function of research funding. I am willing to bet that the researchers saying we are about to be boiled alive are likely to attract a little more of the funding ($2.6 billion for 2011 in the US alone) than those who think the earth has been around long enough to take care of itself. It is already known (from CRU hack) that if you don’t support the AGW message, your “peers” are not likely to give your article a favourable review.
“It’s not so much that people believe one side over the other, but rather that they don’t trust either side. They aren’t willing to involve themselves in something that seems so undecided and messy.” this is how industry propaganda works.
Keep up the doubt, keep it messy and people remain undecided.
Nuclear energy is safe and cheap, we have to have it, renewables cannot supply enough, “yes they can”, “no they cannot”, “no it is not”, “yes it is”, pot kettle, pot kettle, and who wins, the nuclear industy. Same with GM foods, same with pesticide industry, agricultural chemicals, you name it.
Personally I believe nine out of ten of the climate change denialists who post on blogs are nothing more than public relations companies fronting for the oil industry under aliases.
Keep it messy is what they are paid to do, then the public won’t make a decision, they wont trust either side.
@Richard – Exactly! I cannot remember which, but one of the numerous UN conventions on saving the Earth (I was asked to memorise) that achieved nothing more than adding to global warming in the form of plane flights, I actually read through the expenses and the actual scientists were paid 8% of total expenditure, advertising and publishing got nearly 60%. Bullshit still Baffles Brains it seems?
@ Richard…
Sigh.
How do you prove the “honesty” you are after. How does one prove conclusively one way or another. For each time you bring your doubts to the table, there are many many many counter arguments.
This study, then, puts those quibbles in perspective. It says to the public “you see these denialists, well they are consistently less qualified, less well researched, and less published — despite having been in the ‘industry’ for on average ten years longer than those who back ACC”.
I was personally never under the opinion that it was going to change your mind over this issue. I don’t think anything could do that. I just wanted to highlight the merit of those arguing against ACC.
Mike those pro ACC are well funded and very well connected and will relentlessly push their agenda. I read an article after the “warming scandal’ which predicted a tsunami of counter thrusts to paper over this scandal and it is proving true. ACC is a political question and unfortunately the science is pushed back by both sides, this always happens when billions of dollars are at stake. My suspicious mind will always suspect something that was pushed very very vigorously by Enron at Kyoto and guess my knee jerk action is to do what they say in the US with regard to why things happen: “just follow the money.”
My big fear is that global warming is blocking out decades (centuries) of good environmental world management science and the vital clean up of the earths land, water, air etc will be sacrificed on the alter of the current “cool” money/power grabbing scheme.
All i ask is to read widely, especially those you disagree with
Brent
@Mike Baillie – That argument will only hold while until the denialists come up with a similar “study”. At the first sign of credible opposition public opinion will swing viciously. One of the biggest mistakes that “those in power” and “those who are educated” make is to think the average person on the street is too thick to see through this obvious attempt to gather popular votes for global warming. A cause unworthy of real scientists who should be concentrating on gathering and collating the actual facts. All that this will achieve is to make the uninitiated even more anti-science. If the science cannot support the theory then it is time to do more research, and not into scientists’ credentials either.
To my mind, supported by common sense, those “in the industry for ten years longer”, would be merited with the benefits of greater experience and balance. Whereas the ‘newbies’ to the industry, who happen to be in the majority, would be a little brash and self-serving in seeking a name for themselves; – possibly to fit in with the hip crowd, seeking consensus.
@ HD: suggest you read this for more on the Hulme thing:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-lawrence-solomon-and-marcmorano-straight/
@Mike Baillie – “How does one prove conclusively one way or another.” You prove that CO2 is responsible for the current temperature changes. If you cannot, it is not settled. Science requires evidence, until then it is hypothesis or conjecture. Seeing you speak about this paper, could you give the breakdown of scientists and their fields. Obviously we are looking here for those scientists whose speciality is focussed on the linkage between atmospheric composition and temperature as CO2 is to blame. It is of little help to get the vote from scientists who specialise in oceanography or infectious diseases not matter how many publications they have. Otherwise it is like highly regarded theologians from different religions professing different beliefs, and using their theological training qualifications to determine which god to follow. You say you don’t think anything could change my mind. It is usually those who believe something that stubbornly refuse to change their minds. I do not need to believe that CO2 does not cause the temperature to rise catastrophically, I need only weigh up the claim that it does against the evidence provided. You have not presented this evidence, nor has anyone for that matter. Rather you support declarations, voting and qualifications as you spread a message you seem to have little “qualification” to comment on. In religion and politics you can use these methods to settle issues you cannot prove (e.g. Council of Nicea to settle orthodoxy vs. heresy), not in science.
Oh Richard, and all this time I thought you were disputing the link between humans and climate change, not simply the link between CO2 and climate change. In this case you really are out in the cold, since most the ACC sceptics dispute the anthropological aspect of climate change, not the link with CO2.
As to the breakdown of the scientists and their fields researched in this paper, all of them were climate researchers, and they had to have at least 20 publications to their names (however the researchers found that varying this minimum publication cutoff did not materially alter results). So in this case it would seem that, indeed, those most involved with climate science, and those most able to comment on the issue, were surveyed.
Mike, here is a good article in Slate, which is by no means in the sceptic camp, calling the study in question a questionable one:
http://www.slate.com/id/2258088/
@Mike Baillie – a litte equation for you from the IPCC: Humans = CO2 = catastrophic warming. Sceptics are questioning both parts of that equation. Did you also write a paper getting their votes to make your generalisation? Sceptics are not an amorphous lot all agreeing to a creed. Some argue that Trenberth’s earth’s energy budget violates the laws of thermodynamics (see Gerlich, Siddons), others that the use of radiative black body modeling is flawed (Hertzberg), that CO2 forcing is vastly overstated (see Hug), that Mann’s hockey stick is a fraud (climateaudit), that surface temperature data is spurious due to UHI effect (Daly, Pielke, Gray), that CO2 levels have been considerably higher in the past (Beck) that ice core data are poor proxy for CO2 (Jaworowski) and many others. Whatever their views on anthropogenic contribution, they have this in common – they dispute the “settled” science. Counting climate researchers for the NPAS paper is meaningless. AR4 chapter 5 has 66 scientists writing on “Oceanic climate change and sea level”. They are qualified to answer whether ocean temperature and sea level changes are happening, not whether it is human driven? This is effect, not cause. AR4 chapter 9 (Understanding and attributing climate change) has 53 authors where you would expect to find this evidence. This chapter presents no proof, it merely shows that current models fit the last 100 years temperature if they include their CO2 forcing assumption. Modeling when you have the result proves nothing. You must have proof though, please share.
I think what is important in the climate change debate is that there is good scientific debate around the issue. It seems that too many people have already made up their minds, and shoot down any differing views. Also, the implications of ACC must be understood, and these are highly political. Lastly, the sources of funding for research needs to be examined. It seems that there is a lot more funding available to those who advocate ACC.
@Mike You may have an MSc, but are you a climate scientist?