Earth & Environment - Posted by Louis Bergeron-Stanford on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 10:19 - 19 Comments 
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading ...
(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5) Loading ...Expertise lacking among climate skeptics?
An analysis of the scientific prominence and expertise of climate researchers shows that the few who are unconvinced of human-caused climate change rank far below researchers who are convinced. Most news media accounts fail to include that context when reporting claims from doubters. (Credit: iStockphoto)
STANFORD (US)—The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, a new study finds.
In a quantitative assessment—the first of its kind to address this issue—the team analyzed the number of research papers published by more than 900 climate researchers and the number of times their work was cited by other scientists.
“These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions,” says William Anderegg, lead author of a paper published recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis.
Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, says Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology at Stanford University.
Prominence was assessed by taking the four most frequently cited papers published in any field by each scientist—not just climate science publications—and tallying the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers. Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.
The scientists whose work was analyzed included all the researchers involved in producing the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group that assessed the evidence for and against human involvement in climate change, as well as any climate researchers who signed a major public statement disagreeing with the findings of the panel’s report.
The top 100
The team also determined the top 100 climate researchers, based on the total number of climate-related publications each had, which produced an even more telling result, Anderegg says.
“When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC’s assessment,” he says.
That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he adds.
“We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion,” Anderegg says. “We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the media and by some members of the public that ‘the scientists disagree’ about whether human activity is contributing to climate change.”
“I never object to quoting opinions that are ‘way out.’ I think there is nothing wrong with that,” says Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper. “But if the media doesn’t report that something is a ‘way out’ opinion relative to the mainstream, then how is the average person going to know the relative credibility of what is being said?”
“It is sad that we even have to do this,” says Schneider. “[Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science.”
Group think?
The Stanford team is prepared for the doubters of anthropogenic climate change to object to their data.
“I think the most typical criticism of a paper like this—not necessarily in academic discourse, but in the broader context—is going to be that we haven’t addressed if these sorts of differences could be due to some sort of clique or, at the extreme, a conspiracy of the researchers who are convinced of climate change,” Anderegg says.
“When you stop to consider whether some sort of ‘group think’ really drives these patterns and could it really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty laughable,” he says. “All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite.
“If you were a young researcher and had the data to overturn any of the mainstream paradigms, or what the IPCC has done, you would become absolutely famous,” he says. “Everyone wants to be the next Darwin, everyone wants to be the next Einstein.”
Schneider says that the team took pains to avoid any sort of prejudice or skewed data in their analysis. In selecting which of the researchers who signed petitions or statements disagreeing with the findings of the IPCC to include in the study, they omitted those who had no published papers in the climate literature.
“We only picked those who had at least some credentials in climate. So we went way beyond neutral, in their direction, bending over backward,” Schneider says. “The doubters of anthropogenic climate change will claim foul anyway.
“They can say that climate researchers convinced of anthropogenic climate change are just trying to deny publication of the doubters’ opinion, but let them go out and do a study to prove it,” he says. “It is of course not true.”
The research was funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Stanford University.
More news from Stanford: http://news.stanford.edu/
19 Comments
McLain
Stephen, what does that have to do with this study?
Quite symple. Just because you are in the majority does not mean you are right. It is a rule in science that if everybody says one thing there is a good chance there is something wrong with the idea, but if one person says something else there is a good chance there is something right about the idea.
John Garris
It is desirable to have doubts when those in high office seek to gain financially with passage of certain
legislation. ie. B.H. OBama and V. Jerriet an CCX.
What is public is propaganda, what is private is policy.
Mark
Some people (not me!!!) say there is majority agreement because scientists would lose their grants otherwise. Any response to that?
Mark
John Garris, who/what is V. Jerriet and CCX?
jack
This article is a load of crap. This is no real way to prove climate change is caused by humans, just proved that there is a consensus among those being paid to bring about this consensus!
I meant an intelligent, reasoned response…
Diane
Since when have research scientists become unbelievable? My daughter is a research microbiologist at Stanford and one of the most valuable things she has learned in her 20+ years career is how to think critically, looking only at facts. Science is not based on guesswork or group think. One of the things climate scientists have studied is ancient ice cores and fossils. This helps understand climate changes of the past and is useful for the future. From what I have read global climate change is irrefutable. Many species of animals are on the move, looking for new homes as the climate of their old ones have changed. When everything points to global climate change, why wait to try to slow it down while we prove to everyone’s satisfaction that climate is changing due to human activity?
Robert S Hattner MD
I have two observations about this. First, the IPCC investigation found that there was a systematic bias on behalf of its signatories to block the publication of opposing papers essentially markedly limiting the number of published opposing papers. Also global warming investigation funding is essentially limited to proponents further limiting work done by opponents. Finally scientific truth is not settled by consensus. A theory is merely that until it is proved by experiment. Remember when Einstein said that light consisted of particles all of the existing publications said light is a continuous wave.
Dave
When the scientific community actively suppresses publication of articles with which it has politically motivated disagreement and then uses the dearth of published articles to support a conclusion I can only laugh.
the metrics used to determine the “relevance” of a paper or study has absolutely nothing to do with the veracity or accuracy of the information.
I personally accept the majority view, but that says nothing about how pathetic an argument being made by this study.
Elizabeth
Jack, You claim ‘there is no real way to prove climate change is caused by humans…’ but you don’t follow up with what is wrong with the current evidence linking people’s use of fossil fuels and rising CO2 levels leading to rising global air and water temps. What is wrong with ice cores, tree rings, unequal heating of the earth’s atmosphere, and the fact that humans burning fossil fuels produces CO2 (known to absorb infrared radiation from the earth.) The increase in CO2 levels will cause a positive feedback in the amount of water vapor and methane (much worse greenhouse gases than CO2).
Elizabeth
Dr. Hattner, Please elaborate on your two observations about the IPCC investigation. The first statement is rather alarming. Are you saying the panel established by the UN actually prevented the publication of physical and electronic peer-reviewed papers written by scientists, who have serious credentials in climate science research (i.e. graduate degrees with years of climate science field and laboratory research experience)? Did the IPCC prevent contrary evidence into its final assessment? Please clarify. I thought very prestigious science journals like Nature and Science (and I will include the IPCC work group into this category) preview submitted articles on the basis of number and type of references and quality of work reported? The Futurity article claims that climate science expertise was evaluated was based on a minimum of 20 papers on climate research. That figure doesn’t seem unreasonable. Perhaps the IPCC shared a similar approach to who and what can make the final edition of the assessment? Your second comment puzzles me a bit too. Who funds climate science? I would assume NSF, UN, EU, and other large agencies. What would be the motivation for these large agencies to collect data on non-human CO2 production? The controversy whether humans cause global warming or not is so large that I think we need even more money and effort concentrating on connecting the dots between fossil fuel use and rising CO2 levels. Let me put my point another way. Would similar agencies (e.g. NIH) spend money and time collecting information on proving asbestos does not cause cancer, rather something else causes the same kind of cancer people get when exposed to asbestos? Or how about skin cancer is not caused by UV exposure? Who is going to fund those kinds of studies?
Jill
Opinions on climate change issues (who’s in the majority) have changed over the past 25 years so I don’t think that this constitutes “proof” one way or another. The issues in my opinion are : “is the climate changing” and “do we want to continue this trend”. It doesn’t really matter if it’s cows or people or just the way the earth works that is causing it.
Once these questions have been answered (I think the second one might provoke some discussion from Canada and other northern countries) and if the answer to question 2 is “no we don’t” then we do something about it. We need to look at what can be done and if it is something that can be affected by humans, ie reduce carbon emissions. Mankind has been characterized as the most adaptable animal in part because we have spread out and covered most of the world. I believe that mankind is not hugely adaptable – we adapt the world to suit ourselves – just sometimes we get it wrong.
I personally think that the climate has been changing and it is hotter now with the resultant weather disruptions. I mean, even my gardening centre has mentioned to me that planting season is now about 2 weeks earlier.
I also think that we are a long way from completely understanding the interactions of the Earth as a system. But our choices become – wait until we understand it, at which point we may be on the way to extinction; or do our best with the knowledge we have and revise our models regularly
Jon Rom
Along with the majority of folks commenting here, I REALLY don’t care what 97% of leading scientists think. The Truth has nothing to do with the facts, or with evidence, or with proven scientific research. The Truth is more important than facts. “Just the facts ma’am” (as Joe Friday used to say on Dragnet) is an old idea that has no relevance in our society today.
Get over it, liberals – the Enlightenment ended 100’s of years ago. We are in a new age. Nobody cares about your stupid facts. If you liberals care about something you need to find a better way to convince people than quoting stuupid facts, or even 100’s of smart scientists…
This is not a conversation about what is true, it is a political struggle, with our wonderful immensely powerful energy corporations, plus a majority of the US public, on the side of the Truth. Are YOU liberals even able to imagine fighting with us? I don’t think so – we have most of the guns and we’re getting more. The 60’s are SO over.
Goodnight…its getting dark.
seen it
In the 1990’s in Silicon Valley, I noticed that rains were always heaviest on weekends when I wanted to go on hikes in the nearby hills. A study a few years later (sorry, I don’t have to look this up) confirmed my observation. Whoever put the study together theorized that the heat of cars is making a warm bubble over cities that keeps the rain away until the weekends, when fewer cars are on the road and the bubble bursts. If we can change short-term weather, why, with all the amazing things we’ve done to this earth (stripping millions of acres of trees, etc., blow it up if we want to ) would anyone think we can’t affect long-term weather? And just how long-term does long-term have to be before people accept that the heat we’ve created on purpose or not in the course of making our lives more convenient has consequences?
seen it
woops – I meant “I don’t have time to look this up” instead of “I don’t have to look this up”.
Manu Ganji
Elizabeth’s arguments are good and the parameters used in the study do sound convincing.Time’s running out and I think we need to conclude the debate fast so we can bring in some solid effort.
Leave a Comment
New: Futurity’s App
Futurity’s on Alltop
Also find Futurity highlights on related blog Holy Kaw and on the well-followed Twitter page of Alltop cofounder Guy Kawasaki.
In Today’s ScienceBlogs
- The Benefit of Working Bankers Hours? [On Becoming a Domestic and Laboratory Goddess] September 1, 2010
- Hurricane News and Coolest Pictures EVAH! [Greg Laden's Blog] September 1, 2010
- That didn't take long [Pharyngula] September 1, 2010
Science is overloaded with examples of people being persecuted for having ideas that go against the prevailing ideas. Think of Dr. Semillweise (sorry about the spelling) who was driven mad for pointing out that washing your hands between patients reduced infection by up to 90%. Or the attitude of the European Powers concerning machine guns. The guns destroyed masses of African natives before World War I but it was ‘obvious’ the same thing would not happen with white men. Guess what, they were wrong. But it took four years of war to convince the generals.