Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-19-2018, 02:00 PM
Running with Scissors Running with Scissors is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Small blue-green planet
Posts: 1,384
What percentage of scientists actually support anthropogenic global warming?

The number I've seen bandied about for the past several years is 97%. But whenever I look a little closer, the 97% actually refers to the percentage of papers supporting that viewpoint. So, to bring that statistic to its absurd conclusion, 100 papers could have been written, 97 of them by one AGW-believing scientist, and the other three by 3 scientists denying the existence of AGW.

Now obviously, that's not the case, and I personally believe that AGW is a fact. The link I posted says 90-100% of climate scientists believe in AGW, but the page was published two years ago. Is there a more concrete measurement of the number or percentage of climate scientists who do/do not believe AGW is happening?
__________________
"You can't really dust for vomit." -- Nigel Tufnel

Last edited by Running with Scissors; 09-19-2018 at 02:03 PM.
  #2  
Old 09-19-2018, 02:10 PM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 357
This is not how science works.

When a scientist performs research, they publish the results of their research in a scientific journal. The article does not describe what position they “support.” It describes what research was conducted, what experiments were performed, and what results were obtained.

Scientists don’t write papers about what they “support,” and they don’t make decisions democratically. If a scientist “believes” climate change is anthropogenic but does not perform research nor publish his findings, then his “belief” or “support” means jack shit.
  #3  
Old 09-19-2018, 02:39 PM
scr4 scr4 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 14,901
Wikipedia has a whole page of summaries of surveys. Some are surveys of papers, some are of scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

Last edited by scr4; 09-19-2018 at 02:40 PM.
  #4  
Old 09-19-2018, 03:12 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,847
Well, this is actually an older article (2016), but it goes over some of the stats, including surveys of the scientific community. https://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...termediate.htm I won't cut and paste from it, but one of the independent surveys had it as 98% of the climate science community agree it's that human activity is a primary cause of AGW while 2% said it's a secondary cause...0% denied climate change or denied that humans had no effect.

I'd guess that the reality is that actual climate scientists are pretty much in overwhelming consensus about AGW (my WAG is close to 100% of qualified scientists at this point), while the wider community of scientists are probably above 95%...again, just my WAG based on what I've read. The only ones who's opinions on this who matter, of course, are the climate scientists, since they are the one's most engaged with the question.

The thing is, at a certain point the scientific community just stops bothering to debunk something like AGW denial and just moves on. It's pretty much why you don't see scientists involved in biology or genetics feel the need to constantly debunk stuff against evolution, or geologists have to debunk theories about the Earth being only 4000 years old or equally nutty stuff like that. I think climate science has moved into that phase. The only controversy is not really in the scientific community and is happening for reasons other than science.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-19-2018 at 03:13 PM.
  #5  
Old 09-19-2018, 03:16 PM
Tim@T-Bonham.net Tim@T-Bonham.net is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 14,422
Also, before a scientific journal publishes a paper, it is sent to several experienced scientists iin that field, who review the details of the experiments & the calculations involved. They aren't looking so much at the conclusion, but at how the tests were done, and if all relevant factors were considered. It is quite common for reviewers to ask for revisions or more explanations on parts of a paper, before it is ever published.

So a single scientific paper is peer reviewed by several scientists before it is ever published in a journal. Also, most scientific journals turn down 2 or 3 times as many papers as they publish. They choose only the ones they consider most important or relevant to publish in their limited pages. So there are a whole lot of scientific papers about experiments out there, not published in any journal.
  #6  
Old 09-19-2018, 03:31 PM
sbunny8 sbunny8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 1,287
Okay, a couple of things you need to consider carefully.

#1 You said "scientists". Do you mean people who people who have a college degree in a STEM field? Do you mean people who are employed in the STEM field? Do you mean people who are doing scientific research? Or do you mean people who are doing scientific research specifically relating to Earth's climate?

This is important because Art Robinson cobbled together his infamous list of 30,000 "scientist", and his definition of "scientist" was merely someone who has a degree in a STEM field.

#2 You said "support". Do you mean ideas that merely don't contradict AGW? Or do you mean ideas that consistent only if AGW is true? Or do you mean people who hold these ideas? Or do you mean people who don't have any doubts about the ideas?

This is important because you could lay out five sentences that summarize the idea of AGW and show these five sentences to a room full of scientists and ask them "Are you convinced these things are true?" or you could ask them "Are there any things on this list that you aren't 100% sure about?" and you might get completely different answers. That's how Art Robinson got 30,000 people to say they have "doubts".

So, even if you could put 100 scientists into a room and ask them questions, the results would vary greatly depending on what criteria you used to decide who gets into the room, and how the questions were worded.

I tend to agree with JB99 that it would be much more illuminating to look at what the peer-reviewed evidence-based scientific literature actually says rather than the results of an opinion poll.
  #7  
Old 09-19-2018, 03:46 PM
XT's Avatar
XT XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 33,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbunny8 View Post
Okay, a couple of things you need to consider carefully.

#1 You said "scientists". Do you mean people who people who have a college degree in a STEM field? Do you mean people who are employed in the STEM field? Do you mean people who are doing scientific research? Or do you mean people who are doing scientific research specifically relating to Earth's climate?

This is important because Art Robinson cobbled together his infamous list of 30,000 "scientist", and his definition of "scientist" was merely someone who has a degree in a STEM field.

#2 You said "support". Do you mean ideas that merely don't contradict AGW? Or do you mean ideas that consistent only if AGW is true? Or do you mean people who hold these ideas? Or do you mean people who don't have any doubts about the ideas?

This is important because you could lay out five sentences that summarize the idea of AGW and show these five sentences to a room full of scientists and ask them "Are you convinced these things are true?" or you could ask them "Are there any things on this list that you aren't 100% sure about?" and you might get completely different answers. That's how Art Robinson got 30,000 people to say they have "doubts".

So, even if you could put 100 scientists into a room and ask them questions, the results would vary greatly depending on what criteria you used to decide who gets into the room, and how the questions were worded.

I tend to agree with JB99 that it would be much more illuminating to look at what the peer-reviewed evidence-based scientific literature actually says rather than the results of an opinion poll.
It would be more interesting to you or others who would understand them and be able to evaluate them, but then I'd guess that anyone who can really understand the papers AND be able to evaluate them is already not going to be someone who categorically denies climate change, or that it's human caused. But to people who aren't going to read the peer reviewed papers or who if they did wouldn't understand it, then such a poll is more meaningful. Though as you say, it can be skewed. Which brings me to...

Your point about doubt and how scientists actually think which I think and how that very mindset can be exploited or skewed to spin the narrative, often to something completely opposite to what the folks involved actually think. It's what allows stuff like the 30k 'scientists' having doubts that you mentioned, and it's definitely how people can create controversy in the scientific community when there isn't any (such as the methods used in the past about evolution). I think the narrative often gets lost in the technical weeds in these kinds of discussions and it leaves the majority of non-scientists puzzled and frustrated by all the technical aspects they don't grasp.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #8  
Old 09-19-2018, 03:47 PM
Channing Idaho Banks's Avatar
Channing Idaho Banks Channing Idaho Banks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: beautiful Idaho
Posts: 2,533
Nobody really wants catastrophic global warming.
__________________
It's too late.
  #9  
Old 09-19-2018, 04:03 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,383
Even if the OP's claim about the paper linked in the OP were true, based on the amount of time that it takes to get a paper published in a well-respected journal*, the odds of one person writing 97 articles while everyone else only published 3 between them is small. Some researchers will publish more than others, true. They'll also publish in changing groups. But the papers will give a fairly good representation on concurrence.

The linked paper, however, did not just count up published papers. It also assessed 14 previous surveys and analysed the likelihood of concurring with the level of expertise of the group surveyed. The higher the level of expertise, the more likely the surveyed groups was to hold the opinion that AGW has been proven.


*In addition to asking for revisions and explanations, reviewers can asks for additional analysis and/or additional research. They can also say, you didn't control for X, this data can't be used. Start over.
  #10  
Old 09-19-2018, 04:46 PM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,168
The Robinson petition with its 30,000+ signers that sbunny8 mentioned is a good example of a tactic used by advocates of pseudoscience, in an attempt to convince the public that serious doubt/opposition exists among professionals.

You can similarly find petitions with impressive-seeming numbers of signatures denouncing water fluoridation, claiming vaccines are useless/dangerous and so on.

Few of these petition signers have doctorates in and work in relevant fields, and an even tinier percentage perform and publish research dealing with their claims.

The vast majority of climate scientists (and correspondingly the vast majority of published research by these people) support a major human role in climate change, because that's what the evidence heavily shows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by XT
The thing is, at a certain point the scientific community just stops bothering to debunk something like AGW denial and just moves on.
I think we're a long way from that point. There's widespread recognition of continuing dogged denial, and of the need to keep reinforcing accurate public perceptions (even it it means wasting time and money to churn out repetitive research). How many studies have we seen debunking the theory that vaccination causes autism?

Last edited by Jackmannii; 09-19-2018 at 04:47 PM.
  #11  
Old 09-19-2018, 05:02 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 40,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
I think we're a long way from that point. There's widespread recognition of continuing dogged denial, and of the need to keep reinforcing accurate public perceptions (even it it means wasting time and money to churn out repetitive research).
Opposition to global warming isn't based on scientific research, and no amount of additional research is going to convince those who still consider that it doesn't exist or is a hoax.

At this point, any serious scientist is engaged in trying to evaluate the extent and severity of global warming, not that it's occurring or the fact that the major cause is human activity.
  #12  
Old 09-19-2018, 07:57 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 79,021
The vast majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global climate change. They think it's a big problem, and that we need to do a lot more to stop it. That's the opposite of support.
  #13  
Old 09-19-2018, 08:45 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbunny8 View Post
#1 You said "scientists". Do you mean people who people who have a college degree in a STEM field? Do you mean people who are employed in the STEM field? Do you mean people who are doing scientific research? Or do you mean people who are doing scientific research specifically relating to Earth's climate?

This is important because Art Robinson cobbled together his infamous list of 30,000 "scientist", and his definition of "scientist" was merely someone who has a degree in a STEM field.
FTR, it was worse than that. There were various iterations of Art Robinson's "Oregon Petition" which was a putative document signed by 30,000 of these "scientists" supposedly discrediting the science of climate change and urging abandonment of the Kyoto climate accord, but the document was basically a complete fraud and so was Robinson. It was produced in collaboration with Fred Seitz, an unscrupulous fraudster who formerly shilled for the tobacco industry, and who forged one of his propaganda pieces to look like it came from the National Academy of Sciences, and with Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, notorious climate deniers whose fraudulent papers have sometimes infested low-quality journals.

The Oregon Petition was credited to the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" which Art Robinson founded, and which in actual reality is a former chicken farm in the backwoods of Cave Junction, Oregon, with no permanent staff, and which specialized, besides climate change denial, in promoting home schooling and building a bomb shelter against the coming nuclear apocalypse. The signatories to this ridiculous "petition" included not only completely unqualified individuals, but also apparently random names with no affiliation or description given. Also, until the names were removed, it included scientific luminaries like "Dr." Geri Halliwell (one of the Spice Girls), Dr. Frank Burns and Dr. Benjamin Franklin "Hawkeye" Pierce (from the TV show "M*A*S*H"), and a number of Star Trek characters.

Art Robinson may be one of the more colorful loons involved in climate change denial, but that more or less sums up the state of the art.

To answer the OP about what scientists "believe" requires an appropriately phrased question. The question that is most pertinent to policy is whether the human influence on global warming and climate change is sufficiently strong and sufficiently well established that it is actionable and justifies major efforts at mitigation. The answer has been a resounding "yes" for a long time, as demonstrated by the latest global climate accord signed in Paris in 2015 setting emissions targets, and by the statements of the national science bodies of every major country in the world (cite) urging remedial action on climate change.
  #14  
Old 09-19-2018, 10:47 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,930
The OP must had missed the very funny take John Oliver had when he showed what a fair debate would actually look like when 97% of climate scientists are involved in a debate against the contrarian 3%.

A Statistically Representative Climate Change Debate: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
  #15  
Old 09-19-2018, 11:19 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbunny8 View Post
I tend to agree with JB99 that it would be much more illuminating to look at what the peer-reviewed evidence-based scientific literature actually says rather than the results of an opinion poll.
And that was done more than 10 years ago.

http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...5702/1686.full
Quote:
The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
AFAICR I think it was Oreskes that made the comment that we have here not only a super majority of the opinion of the climate scientists, but there is also a super majority of the evidence pointing to the direction that the earth is warming, and that humans are involved on that.
  #16  
Old 09-20-2018, 01:58 AM
HoneyBadgerDC HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 7,760
In the reports i have read none of them address C02 specifically and what effect it alone is having on global temps. I can see where it shows the increase in CO2. Is it because there is just no accurate way to identify exactly which gasses are doing what?
  #17  
Old 09-20-2018, 03:10 AM
Nava Nava is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 39,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
The only ones who's opinions on this who matter, of course, are the climate scientists, since they are the one's most engaged with the question.
Not quite, since often those who are in a position to do something about it are people from other disciplines. Engineers who are motivated to search for more-efficient methods and processes, for example. One of the biggest economic fallacies is the idea that a more efficient process will always be more expensive; a more efficient process has lower costs than the one it's replaced, so even if it does need some initial investment (which isn't always the case) it "pays for itself".
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #18  
Old 09-20-2018, 04:54 AM
doubleminus doubleminus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 305
The interesting thing for me is sociological: What percentage of STEM graduates do not believe in AGW ? Supposedly these people should have good critical and logical faculties.

A bonus question would be what is the correlation between Republican/Democrat voters and AGW belief. I faintly remember reading somewhere that it is exceedingly high.
  #19  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:19 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by HoneyBadgerDC View Post
In the reports i have read none of them address C02 specifically and what effect it alone is having on global temps. I can see where it shows the increase in CO2. Is it because there is just no accurate way to identify exactly which gasses are doing what?
The effects of different GHGs and other factors have indeed been individually identified, and are expressed as "climate forcings", measured in watts per m**2 which defines their contribution to the change in the earth's total energy balance. CO2 is by far the greatest contributor at +1.66 W/m**2. CO2 also persists in the atmosphere much longer than other significant GHGs like methane, enhancing its importance.

The exact relationship to temperature is complicated because of the existence of feedbacks, such as increase in atmospheric water vapor and reduction of polar ice cover, but there's little doubt that despite the existence of other anthropogenic and natural contributors to climate change, CO2 is currently the biggest single factor driving global temperature change.
  #20  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:58 AM
Ludovic Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 28,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nava View Post
Not quite, since often those who are in a position to do something about it are people from other disciplines. Engineers who are motivated to search for more-efficient methods and processes, for example. One of the biggest economic fallacies is the idea that a more efficient process will always be more expensive; a more efficient process has lower costs than the one it's replaced, so even if it does need some initial investment (which isn't always the case) it "pays for itself".
But when more efficient processes are less expensive, they can paradoxically cause more pollution than the less efficient processes because people use them a lot more.
  #21  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:18 AM
JB99 JB99 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Channing Idaho Banks View Post
Nobody really wants catastrophic global warming.
... so they just pretend it doesn’t exist.
  #22  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:10 AM
am77494 am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,321
The Pareto principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle (or Pareto Distribution) applies to scientists too. Roughly 20% of the important science come from approximately 20% of the scientists. The rest of the scientists are just mediocre and follow the leading scientists.

Visit any scientific conference and you will see only a very few sessions (maybe 20% ?) heavily attended. The rest are just there to humor egos.

Visit any good University's science or engineering departments, you will find the same distribution. About 20% of the professors get 80% or more of the grant money. The rest of the professors are just mediocre.


So, on the whole, the idea of "percent of scientists" is kinda invalid. Just convince the important 20% and the rest will follow.
  #23  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:19 AM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 57,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
The Pareto principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle (or Pareto Distribution) applies to scientists too. Roughly 20% of the important science come from approximately 20% of the scientists. The rest of the scientists are just mediocre and follow the leading scientists.
I believe the correct number is 80% of the important science come from approximately 20% of the scientists.
  #24  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:41 AM
am77494 am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I believe the correct number is 80% of the important science come from approximately 20% of the scientists.
Yes Czarcasm - thank you for the correction.
  #25  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:42 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 29,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The vast majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global climate change. They think it's a big problem, and that we need to do a lot more to stop it. That's the opposite of support.
Similarly, when someone asks for me to donate money for, say, heart disease, I always ask if the money will be used for or against heart disease.
  #26  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:32 PM
seal_cleaner seal_cleaner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Northwest Arkansas
Posts: 2,048
The question is meaningless - scientists don’t “support” or “believe” in global warming, or gravity, or the Big Bang. They deal with verifiable data.
  #27  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:42 PM
glowacks glowacks is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
The vast majority of scientists do not support anthropogenic global climate change. They think it's a big problem, and that we need to do a lot more to stop it. That's the opposite of support.
This is the first thing that went through my mind too, along with: Does the OP really think there are scientists out there who are gung-ho about changing the climate? That we're not doing enough to make the Earth warmer, because there's so much useless land in Canada and Russia now because it's too cold there?
  #28  
Old 09-20-2018, 05:54 PM
echoreply's Avatar
echoreply echoreply is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by seal_cleaner View Post
The question is meaningless - scientists don’t “support” or “believe” in global warming, or gravity, or the Big Bang. They deal with verifiable data.
Yes, but scientists will often speak colloquially/lazily/imprecisely(?) and say "believe." For example, a scientist might say "I believe in hypothesis A," when what is actually meant is, "based on the evidence and data I am familiar with, I think that hypothesis A is mostly likely correct."

Among scientists talking to each other this usually isn't a problem, but when somebody who doesn't think like a scientist hears it, they are likely to interpret "believe" wrong. Even with scientists, when discussing their field of knowledge I would interpret it differently than if we were talking about religion or something.
  #29  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:18 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
The Pareto principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle (or Pareto Distribution) applies to scientists too. Roughly 20% of the important science come from approximately 20% of the scientists. The rest of the scientists are just mediocre and follow the leading scientists.

Visit any scientific conference and you will see only a very few sessions (maybe 20% ?) heavily attended. The rest are just there to humor egos.

Visit any good University's science or engineering departments, you will find the same distribution. About 20% of the professors get 80% or more of the grant money. The rest of the professors are just mediocre.


So, on the whole, the idea of "percent of scientists" is kinda invalid. Just convince the important 20% and the rest will follow.
I disagree with your conclusion. It's pretty much universally true that the most important advancements come from a minority of researchers, but only for the simple reason that in any body of research the relative importance of discoveries follows more or less a normal distribution, so only a small number of them will be rated at the high end of the bell curve. But it's ridiculous to characterize the majority of research scientists as "followers" in the pejorative sense of being non-creative or non-critical. Every legitimate scientist contributes new knowledge in some area, and for those seeking fame, there is no surer path to fame than disproving a widely held theory and blazing a new trail to discovery. So there's in fact good motivation to be critical, but for that you need good evidence.

What you seem to be disparaging with the "followers" trope is the important fact that science advances incrementally by building on previously established foundations. It's no different in climate science, where well established theories in, for example, the radiative forcing associated with greenhouse gases is the foundation for pursuing a better understanding of our climate system. The fact that scientists don't sit around perpetually questioning whether CO2 is truly an important factor in climate change is not because they're "followers", it's because they're scientists, not conservative pundits on a late-night talk radio show.
  #30  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:46 PM
am77494 am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
I disagree with your conclusion.
It’s your right to disagree. Scientists are humans too and the Pareto principle is a scientific principle that applies to all human endeavors, scientists included. Consider the following :
1. Go to any University and look at the library records of the thesis written in the last 10 years. You will find that only about 20% of them have been referred to extensively while the rest collect dust.

2. Look at Reference papers in any scientific publications. You will find that a few publications are referenced by a lot of other publications.

3. Talk to PhD students at any university. They will tell you the few key professors that can make or break their careers by being co-authors on their paper.

4. And then there is the great crisis in science. The crisis of reproducibility. Just do a google search.

I have held the title of “Research Scientist” in the past (thankfully no more) and am fully aware of the dances that go on for getting research grants and the levels of exaggeration on grant proposals.

Confirmation bias and p hacking was (and maybe is) so prevalent that special committees exist just to stop this behavior.

Pick any science related conference and checkout bibliographic evidence on all attendees. You’ll see that only a fraction of them have most publications.
  #31  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:08 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
I'll make the following responses to your points.

Items 1 through 3 just reiterate the fact that contributions to scientific advancement fall along a bell curve, a fact that I do not dispute but consider irrelevant in this context.

I disagree with the use of the word "crisis" in item 4, although this term has been bandied about because it's much more newsworthy than saying "potential issues in some fields of research". I consider it a cynical view of the state of scientific research, and such truth as there is to it is very much field-dependent. When I have seen reports and papers making this type of claim, they usually tend to come from medical research sources and whether they explicitly say so or not, they usually pertain to reproducibility problems in medical research and sometimes "soft" sciences like psychology (and yes, I'm aware of some of the sensationalized articles that have appeared in Nature and elsewhere). They are most acute in clinical drug trials and in cancer therapies, where one frequently hears about the so-called "decline effect" in the Kaplan-Meier curve used to track cancer survival rates in response to specific therapies.

But my greatest objection to your earlier comments and those about reproducibility is that such claims are subject to really serious misinterpretation by the casual reader who might be tempted to conclude that scientific findings are just unreliable, particularly in politically controversial areas like climate change. And this would be totally false and extremely unfortunate. It would overlook the fact that from a layman's point of view, these criticisms -- such as they are -- apply to relative technical minutiae and not to foundational principles such as the scientific understanding that drives public policy in climate change.

The reproducibility issue thus has exactly zero relevance to our well-established knowledge of the radiative forcing of CO2 or to its post-industrial increase from anthropogenic sources. The reproducibility or lack thereof and therefore the validity of any given set of scientific research papers might have the effect of changing conclusions and projections by perhaps some figure after the decimal point. The IPCC conclusions, for instance, are supported by thousands of cited research papers with broadly consistent conclusions. Landmark papers like some of those of Michael Mann et al. (particularly the early temperature reconstructions that showed the classic "hockey stick" post-industrial temperature spike) have been subject to more scrutiny and reproducibility tests than any other research that I know of, to the point that Mann has quite literally been persecuted by climate change denialists -- and have emerged unscathed and even more strongly confirmed.

And finally -- and I apologize if I'm reading too much into your comments -- but ISTM that the reference to "followers" tries to imply that there are few climate scientists capable or willing to take a critical position on AGW. This is just flat-out untrue. The reality is that the basic true-or-false dichotomy over AGW exists as a "controversy" only in the media and among the scientifically uninformed. There's no such basic "controversy" in the actual science and legitimate climate scientists don't get into these stupid arguments because they're busy doing science. There are rare exceptions like Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas whom I mentioned earlier, who are just shills for the fossil fuel industry and produce discreditable junk science, like their claims that solar variations are solely responsible for everything. Or Roy Spencer, who openly admits to being motivated by anti-government libertarian views.

Or the now-retired Richard Lindzen, who was actually a legitimate atmospheric physicist at MIT, and who mostly confined his idiotic denialism and puerile pronouncements ("who can say what the ideal temperature is for the earth?") to the lay media, and aside from a few discredited forays into the journals, mostly managed to keep his real research well separated from his contrarian pontifications. It was a remarkable performance, because in his writings and lectures to the everday audience, the man obviously knew he was spouting deceptive bullshit. This is diametrically opposite to someone like Christopher Monckton (his grace the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley) whose climate denialism stems from being a congenital imbecile.
  #32  
Old 09-21-2018, 12:32 AM
wevets wevets is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: hobgoblin of geographers
Posts: 4,258
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
Scientists are humans too and the Pareto principle is a scientific principle that applies to all human endeavors, scientists included. Consider the following

You definitely don't have to provide any evidence for this. Clearly, 80% of the mileage run in the Boston Marathon is run by only 20% of the runners.

Likewise, 20% of the runners account for 80% of the time spent running the marathon.

These facts are self-evident. There's no need to use evidence to show the Pareto principle actually applies in a specific situation.
  #33  
Old 09-21-2018, 06:30 AM
am77494 am77494 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
But my greatest objection to your earlier comments and those about reproducibility is that such claims are subject to really serious misinterpretation by the casual reader who might be tempted to conclude that scientific findings are just unreliable, particularly in politically controversial areas like climate change.
Wolfpup - first of all apologies. It seems like I’ve offended you at some deeper level. The objective of my post was not to divide the scientific community into winners and minced meats. I agree with many of your points except the quoted above.

There is a wide spread bias (IMO) in the scientific community that the so called “casual reader” does not understand science. I have seen no scientific studies to prove this. For example :

1. Five years back, the scientific consensus on many organic foods was that there is no benefit from many organic foods and their nutrition values were the same as regular foods. Yet many of my scientist friends (and yes they supported climate change data) insisted on buying organic food for their family. The scientific consensus on organic food was irrelevant to them. Would the nutrition scientists consider these scientists as “casual readers” ?

2. Most of my scientist friends have the same median carbon footprint as my non scientist friends

I understand that the above is anecdotal data but these things do not have actual data .

My point is that the belief that scientists are rational creatures while the general population is not is a flawed belief. Or maybe it is true, but I have not seen hard data to confirm (or deny) this.
  #34  
Old 09-21-2018, 07:42 AM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by doubleminus View Post
The interesting thing for me is sociological: What percentage of STEM graduates do not believe in AGW ? Supposedly these people should have good critical and logical faculties.
If only it were so. IME undergrad programs are more about teaching the introductory technical material than about critical and logical faculties, and learning how to be a good scientist gets pushed into grad school. That is a very broad brush, mind you.

True, a good scientist will get through the undergrad program just fine, but a mediocre or bad scientist with some good recall likely will as well. Most of my fellow chem majors were aiming at medical school, not a place known for cultivating good scientists.

Even with grad school, a lot of real doozies slip through. I'm sure every person with a PhD reading this is nodding and thinking of multiple people. To a point, a mediocre or even bad grad student can be better for the advisor than no grad student. Handing out degrees to duds does hurt reputation, but a pair of hands is a pair of hands.
  #35  
Old 09-21-2018, 08:33 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
Wolfpup - first of all apologies. It seems like I’ve offended you at some deeper level. The objective of my post was not to divide the scientific community into winners and minced meats. I agree with many of your points except the quoted above.

There is a wide spread bias (IMO) in the scientific community that the so called “casual reader” does not understand science. I have seen no scientific studies to prove this. For example :

1. Five years back, the scientific consensus on many organic foods was that there is no benefit from many organic foods and their nutrition values were the same as regular foods. Yet many of my scientist friends (and yes they supported climate change data) insisted on buying organic food for their family. The scientific consensus on organic food was irrelevant to them. Would the nutrition scientists consider these scientists as “casual readers” ?

2. Most of my scientist friends have the same median carbon footprint as my non scientist friends

I understand that the above is anecdotal data but these things do not have actual data .

My point is that the belief that scientists are rational creatures while the general population is not is a flawed belief. Or maybe it is true, but I have not seen hard data to confirm (or deny) this.
You did not offend me but my responses were prompted by the belief that your comments about the weaknesses of science and its practitioners could easily be interpreted in a very misleading way in the context of the OP's question. In a word, the scientific consensus on the basic facts of anthropogenic climate change is very strong and very important, yet you appeared to be suggesting that 80% of climate scientists are mediocre duffers and therefore presumably uncritical, so they'll just uncritically believe whatever the leading research says, so the consensus is meaningless. The reality is that the consensus exists because the science has long been settled far, far beyond these elementary basics.

Let me now address your observation that it's false to say that the general public doesn't understand science in an area like climate change. If you think the general public does, you must be joking. In fact the disconnect between well-established scientific findings about climate change and the beliefs of much of the public is the largest disconnect I have ever seen on any subject in my life. It's genuinely a crisis of ignorance: the October 29 - November 4, 2011 issue of New Scientist ran a cover emblazoned with the title "Unscientific America: A dangerous retreat from reason" with a special report citing the extent of public misinformation about climate change -- including among top political leaders -- as one of the most disturbing examples of this phenomenon. The central thesis of the report is that even as science advances, we are becoming a nation retreating into the darkness of scientific illiteracy.

It's a crisis of ignorance that's being systematically fed by dark money from industrial vested interests. An estimated $900 million a year is being spent by what one study calls "US climate change countermovement organizations" on the spread of disinformation about climate change. The most cursory Google search will turn up hundreds if not thousands of blogs and websites questioning, undermining, and denying the science. A huge segment of the US population just recently elected a president who declared climate change to be a hoax and withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement, and many members of Congress agree with him. Right now one of the most notorious of the plethora of denialist websites, run by a former TV weatherman named Anthony Watts, has a lead article that begins with the following sentence: "Professionals and academics who disagree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been ostracized for their contrary views, resulting in termination of their employment, or in forced retirement." The battle against the science is being accompanied by personal attacks against scientists and the integrity of an entire scientific discipline. Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre continue their vicious and unsubstantiated attacks on climate research in general and Michael Mann in particular -- and they are just two prominent deniers among thousands, most with their own blogs.

And you're going to tell us that "There is a wide spread bias (IMO) in the scientific community that the so called “casual reader” does not understand science"? I assure you, it's not a bias, it's a fact -- at least in areas that are politically controversial like climate change.

To be clear, one can make all kinds of criticisms of the scientific process in the appropriate venue and context: sure, scientists are only human; they can make mistakes; they have their pet theories and may disparage competing theories with emotional zeal; there are in certain contexts reprodicibility problems that are worth discussing. But none of these things are relevant in the broader context of major scientific findings that have long been settled. In the same way that such observations have no relevance to central questions about biogical evolution, they have no relevance to the central questions about anthropogenic climate change and the requisite public policies to mitigate it.

So to bring up in this context, in a thread like this, the allegation that the majority of scientists are "followers" and presumably therefore uncritical of mainstream climate theories is highly misleading and therefore a disservice to the interests of fighting ignorance. It is, indeed, perilously close to the same sentiment advanced in that first sentence I quoted from the denialist Watts website.

Last edited by wolfpup; 09-21-2018 at 08:36 AM.
  #36  
Old 09-21-2018, 11:32 AM
Jackmannii Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 30,168
Quote:
Originally Posted by seal_cleaner View Post
The question is meaningless - scientists don’t “support” or “believe” in global warming, or gravity, or the Big Bang. They deal with verifiable data.
This presumes that scientists are strictly objective harvesters and analysts of data, with no stake in the outcome of their research and its impact on society.

Scientists vary in the degree to which they defend their conclusions (in public or on a more subdued academic level), but many choose activism to support their beliefs.
  #37  
Old 09-21-2018, 05:02 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,071
First - here's only one way to find out for sure - but it will take quite a few years and there's no going back. We are in the midst of one giant experiment with an 8,000 mile in diameter petri dish (globe). What scientists think is irrelevant, unless it can change something. "What scientists think" is also irrelevant unless you define who and about what. Physicists can discuss greenhouse effect; chemists can talk about carbon dioxide and water acidification; biologists can discuss effects like coral bleaching and polar bears starvation, etc. Few people can address all details. Beyond their specialty, what they "believe" is as relvant as what the rest of us believe.
  #38  
Old 09-21-2018, 05:24 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
What scientists believe is actually very important because scientists need to be advisors to policymakers on what actions to take and why they need to be taken. This role of science has been seen as essential to public policy since some dude named Abraham Lincoln authorized the formation of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, but it has never been as important as it is now, not even when the government put its faith in science for the NASA missions or the Manhattan Project. But this role is difficult to fulfill when half of Congress is still arguing that climate change is a hoax perpetrated either by the Chinese or by a conspiracy of alarmist grant-seeking climate scientists.
  #39  
Old 09-22-2018, 03:52 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by am77494 View Post
1. Five years back, the scientific consensus on many organic foods was that there is no benefit from many organic foods and their nutrition values were the same as regular foods. Yet many of my scientist friends (and yes they supported climate change data) insisted on buying organic food for their family.
There are other reasons besides nutrition to choose to buy organic foods.
  #40  
Old 09-22-2018, 03:50 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 79,021
There are almost no reasons to buy organic foods. There are reasons to buy sustainable foods, or small-batch foods, or cruelty-free foods, or heirloom foods, or many other categories. But despite what many people think, those categories have only incidental overlap with "organic".
  #41  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:07 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,397
Appropriate cite in this thread of Mann. Mann's absurd discredited "hockey stick," even though it was promulgated by a self-declared Nobel Prize winner who will sue you and lose if you say otherwise, who will sue you and lose if you submit peer-reviewed alternative scientific examinations--sue, mind you--or citing it without even noting that a mountain of evidence from non-conspiracy non-crazy non-Republicans, including the evidence brought out (partly in court, which adds irony to Mann's patent venality)--is evidence of absurdly arbitrary data gathering and graph forcing, and is perhaps the most egregious case of the wreckage of public discourse with scientists, most especially such a flawed one as Mann.

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 09-22-2018 at 05:10 PM.
  #42  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:15 PM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
^^^
Leo, I can't tell if there is supposed to be a serious point here or not, or if this is some kind of incomprehensible attempt at sarcasm. If there is a serious point, could you please state it in plain English so I can respond to it.
  #43  
Old 09-22-2018, 07:50 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 13,397
Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources.

Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse.

He does not respond to the discrete scientific evidence brought to the scientific community relative to his methodology and conclusions.

His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. It is barely, barely not fraudulent once the details his cherry picked data is factored in. However, the data is arbitrary both as to source date and statistical validity which makes it useless. And it is fraudulent, in fact, because those data sources were not presented, and then the famous graphical representation is on a bizarrely modified axis.

Your cite (I believe it was, but it didnt'/doesn't matter) I considered worthwhile because it's _the_ favorite cite of laymen (like myself) who claim to undertand scientific validity but don't (not like myself).

The fact that he is a venal prick, and has initiated a law suit against a magazine and the author of an article _about his hockey stick, no less_ has cost the defendants huge amounts of money, and despite each loss Mann pursues another avenue to restore what's left of his name for the few supporters he has by perpetuating his claims.

His actions against a publisher and author are contemptible for a scientist, and more important, for any citizen. Which is why the array of amicus curiae of the defendant is the largest and somewhat oddest and impressive group likely scene in a 1st Amendment case. And I repeat, one where the matter, is the plaintiff's desire to have a judge or jury rule in favor of his scientific results.

The best part of the whole lawsuit deal is he always claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, and added that in his suit to back himself up, and everyone got a good laugh when the court was informed otherwise by Stockholm.

So, my saying in my originating has post that "citing Mann" is a worthwhile addition to this thread is not sarcasm. Whoever cited him has announced, to the benefit of the OP topic, one of the issues that must be considered when even attempting to answer the discrete question asked in the subject header.

I, for one, have no interest in pursuing further here the case of that little boil on science and society. More information is readily available.

But not accessed or assimilated, however, by the legions of politically driven people who take great strength in wielding their "Nobel Prize Winner's Memorable Icon."

Last edited by Leo Bloom; 09-22-2018 at 07:55 PM.
  #44  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:44 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 20,828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources.
Hmmm. Could you give a citation of a specific paper by Mann that you consider "academically fraudulent", along with a cite for the claim that it has been "shown to be so"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse.
Again, could you give a cite so we can be sure what lawsuit(s) you're talking about? I'm aware only of Mann's defamation lawsuit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review for blog allegations calling him "fraudulent", which of course is not the same thing as "challenging his scientific findings".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. It is barely, barely not fraudulent once the details his cherry picked data is factored in. However, the data is arbitrary both as to source date and statistical validity which makes it useless. And it is fraudulent, in fact, because those data sources were not presented, and then the famous graphical representation is on a bizarrely modified axis.
Cite for a source of this criticism, describing in detail (preferably in a peer-reviewed scientific publication) the claims of "near" fraud?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
The fact that he is a venal prick, and has initiated a law suit against a magazine and the author of an article _about his hockey stick, no less_ has cost the defendants huge amounts of money, and despite each loss Mann pursues another avenue to restore what's left of his name for the few supporters he has by perpetuating his claims.
Cite for the alleged "loss"? AFAICT Mann's defamation lawsuit is still ongoing as of this writing, despite numerous failed attempts by the defendants to get it dismissed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
His actions against a publisher and author are contemptible for a scientist, and more important, for any citizen. Which is why the array of amicus curiae of the defendant is the largest and somewhat oddest and impressive group likely scene in a 1st Amendment case.
again. AFAICT, the amicus brief is arguing that the accusations of fraud against Mann aren't actionable because they're constitutionally protected under the First Amendment as expressions of opinion. Which is not exactly a ringing endorsement of their scientific merit as "challenges to his scientific findings".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
The best part of the whole lawsuit deal is he always claimed he was a Nobel Laureate, and added that in his suit to back himself up, and everyone got a good laugh when the court was informed otherwise by Stockholm.
Triple . Mann is a contributor to the IPCC reports on climate change for which the IPCC was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Al Gore, and was individually acknowledged (along with each of the other contributing scientists) by the IPCC as a joint honoree. So if Al Gore counts as a "Nobel Laureate", then arguably Mann and all the other IPCC contributors do too. Are you suggesting that Mann has falsely claimed Nobel Laureate status in some other context?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom
I, for one, have no interest in pursuing further here the case of that little boil on science and society. More information is readily available.
Hmmmm. Does that mean I'm not going to get those cites I asked for? Because when I went looking for "readily available" information on the subject, what I came up with suggested the above queries about your assertions.

So it would be a kindness on your part to point out where the information you're actually talking about is in fact "readily available".

Last edited by Kimstu; 09-22-2018 at 08:47 PM.
  #45  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:46 PM
Ruken Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 6,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse.
Ah, I suppose writing "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science" is "normal scientific discourse."
  #46  
Old 09-23-2018, 12:28 AM
wolfpup's Avatar
wolfpup wolfpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 9,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources ...
I asked for clarification because I genuinely didn't know whether you were serious. I guess you are, but what you've posted is stream-of-consciousness bullshit that is so absurd as to not be worth responding to. I see that Kimstu has already asked you to substantiate it.

I'll ask you for a cite for the above. I already know that any cite you could provide for any of it would be entirely disreputable, but I'll ask anyway just for fun to see what you come up with.

For the information of those with a serious interest in this aspect of the science, the attacks against Michael Mann, one of the world's foremost climate scientists, are generally associated with the publication in 1998 of a 1000-year temperature reconstruction that showed a dramatic "hockey stick" spike in global temperatures in the post-industrial era, followed by an expanded reconstruction published in 1999, both with Mann as lead author and with Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes as collaborators, papers now often referred to in the literature as MBH98 and MBH99.

These were landmark advances in paleoclimatology and would normally have been uncontroversially acknowledged as major contributions to climate science, except that the clear evidence that there was something very unusual happening in the modern climate prompted a vicious reaction from the denialist camp, and an ensuing drama of baseless personal attacks against Mann, the kind we've just seen in Leo's post. The earliest of these was probably a paper by the McIntyre and McKitrick pair I mentioned earlier, one of them a statistician and the other a former mining engineer, both fervent climate change deniers and neither of them with any knowledge of climate science. They managed to get a flawed paper published in Nature, but after they and their paper were discredited they pretty much resorted to blogging.

The attacks against the paper were based on two main factors, Mann's use of a statistical technique called decentered principal component analysis (PCA), and questioning the validity of some of the temperature proxies that were used, particularly the tree ring proxies from bristlecone pines.

The short version of it all is this. Congress got involved when Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the Committee on Science, asked the National Academy of Sciences to investigate the overall question of the 2000-year temperature record, partly in response to all the ruckus that had been raised particularly when Texas oilman and Congressman Joe Barton (R, Texas) -- who had been openly hostile to climate science and personally threatening to climate scientists like Mann -- had commissioned his own report criticizing Mann's paper.

The result of all the ruckus was a powerful vindication of Michael Mann and his work in the subsequent years which greatly elevated his stature in the scientific community, and he is now regarded as one of the leading climate scientists in the world today. The first major development was the release of the National Academy assessment of his work. The report, released in 2006, was produced by the National Research Council of the National Academy and titled Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (ISBN: 0-309-66264-8, National Academies Press, 2006). With regard to the use of decentered PCA, the report stated that "reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al." Having essentially vindicated all of Mann's conclusions, they also noted that he was among the first to describe reconstructions with an uncertainty envelope (although they expressed the view that MBH98 probably underestimated the uncertainties).

The following year, an important paper -- Wahl and Ammann (2007) [PDF] -- further vindicated Mann's results. They showed, among many other things, that criticisms of the variability modes that may have been influenced by PCA were baseless because Mann's results still stood regardless. They also showed that the bristlecone proxies had not substantially influenced the data, and indeed Mann himself presented reconstructions with and without tree ring chronologies of any kind, and showed that results were substantially the same and post-industrial warmth unprecedented in at least 1300 years.

Since then, many other groups using many other proxy sets have shown the same, and there have been dozens of long-term paleoclimate temperature reconstructions since as early as 2007, with the release of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. The entire Chapter 6 of the Fourth Assessment Report deals with paleoclimate temperature reconstructions, and offers a very thorough and frank analysis of the subject, including the areas of uncertainty and where there is debate and lack of consensus, and again fully exonerates Michael Mann and his pioneering work.
  #47  
Old 09-23-2018, 03:19 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
There are almost no reasons to buy organic foods.
The biggest reason, in my observation, is because they are a superior good. That's reason enough for many people.
  #48  
Old 09-23-2018, 03:41 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources.
Cite 4 reputable scientific papers by 4 different authors that "show" this, please. Four being the traditional threshold for "many".
Quote:
Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse.
No, Mann's sued those who libeled him.
Quote:
His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible.
The NAS says different.
Quote:
The fact that he is a venal prick
Is that your scientific assessment?

Yes, he was a bit of an idiot about the Nobel thing. But he certainly isn't still calling himself a laureate (I'm taking you at your word that he used to) and, more importantly, it has exactly the intersection of fuck and all to do with the scientific validity of his work.
Quote:
despite each loss
Which losses would those be? All I've seen are how the increasingly desperate attempts to get the lawsuit dismissed have been slapped down. Hard.
Quote:
I, for one, have no interest in pursuing further here the case of that little boil on science and society.
Just going to drop your ad hominem turd in the GQ punchpowl and dash, eh?

Last edited by MrDibble; 09-23-2018 at 03:42 AM.
  #49  
Old 09-23-2018, 08:13 AM
Andy L Andy L is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,493
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post

More information is readily available.
And yet not provided.
  #50  
Old 09-23-2018, 12:53 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 27,930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
Mann has published papers which are academically fraudulent and have been shown to be so by many sources.

Mann has sued in court those who challenge his scientific findings, rather than rebut them or answer outstanding questions in the normal avenues of scientific discourse.

He does not respond to the discrete scientific evidence brought to the scientific community relative to his methodology and conclusions.

His hockey stick has been shown to be as close to scientific fraud as near possible. It is barely, barely not fraudulent once the details his cherry picked data is factored in. However, the data is arbitrary both as to source date and statistical validity which makes it useless. And it is fraudulent, in fact, because those data sources were not presented, and then the famous graphical representation is on a bizarrely modified axis.

Your cite (I believe it was, but it didnt'/doesn't matter) I considered worthwhile because it's _the_ favorite cite of laymen (like myself) who claim to undertand scientific validity but don't (not like myself).
[snip]

Others replied well to those "points", but I will report on how the ones pushing contrarian information out there are the ones committing the actual fraud. For example, Mann did publish proper research, he did respond to discrete evidence, his data was not arbitrary, and the critics already where criticized themselves as wolfpup noted already.

http://www.rap.ucar.edu/projects/rc4...Change2007.pdf (PDF file)
Quote:
Eugene R. Wahl

Caspar M. Ammann
Received: 11 May 2005 / Accepted: 1 March 2006 / Published online: 31 August 2007

Abstract: The Mann et al. (1998) Northern Hemisphere annual temperature reconstruction over 1400–1980 is examined in light of recent criticisms concerning the nature and processing of included climate proxy data. A systematic sequence of analyses is presented that examine issues concerning the proxy evidence, utilizing both indirect analyses via exclusion of proxies and processing steps subject to criticism, and direct analyses of principal component (PC) processing methods in question. Altogether new reconstructions over 1400–1980 are developed in both the indirect and direct analyses, which demonstrate that the Mann et al. reconstruction is robust against the proxy-based criticisms addressed.

In particular, reconstructed hemispheric temperatures are demonstrated to be largely unaffected by the use or non-use of PCs to summarize proxy evidence from the data-rich North American region.

When proxy PCs are employed, neither the time period used to “center” the data before PC calculation nor the way the PC calculations are performed significantly affects the results, as long as the full extent of the climate information actually in the proxy data is represented by the PC time series. Clear convergence of the resulting climate reconstructions is a strong indicator for achieving this criterion. Also, recent “corrections” to the Mann et al. reconstruction that suggest 15th century temperatures could have been as high as those of the late-20th century are shown to be without statistical and climatological merit.

Our examination does suggest that a slight modification to the original Mann et al. reconstruction is justifiable for the first half of the 15th century (∼+0.05–0.10◦), which leaves entirely unaltered the primary conclusion of Mann et al. (as well as many other reconstructions) that both the 20th century upward trend and high late-20th century hemispheric surface temperatures are anomalous over at least the last 600 years.
IOW: normal avenues of scientific discourse already did vindicate Mann's conclusions, by this time one has to declare sources like McIntyre and McKitrick, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, groups like the AEI, most of the influential American conservatives and virtually all other famous contrarians that show up on TV (and not in avenues of scientific discourse) to be demagogues for continuing to mislead others.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 09-23-2018 at 12:56 PM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017