Thousands of Scientists are Skeptical of Global Warming

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

If you know enough to meaningfully discuss this subject at all, then you know perfectly well what constitutes expertise in a scientific field, and what credentials may or may not be cited to show it, and that expertise in one scientific field does not automatically translate to another.

Obviously I don’t so please enlighten me. I would like to know how to determine if someone is a climate scientist.

[BrainGlutton]

@Poptech

Obviously I don’t so please enlighten me. I would like to know how to determine if someone is a climate scientist.

ClimateSight sets it out pretty clearly:

The Credibility Spectrum

April 11, 2009 at 12:03 pm · Filed under How Science Works ·Tagged climate change, credibility, global warming, media, politics, science, statements

Let’s face it, there’s a lot of “climate science” out there that’s absolute rubbish.

Whichever side of the debate you’re on. Whether you believe global warming is a political hoax or that all skeptics are funded by Exxon. No matter what your opinions are, chances are that you’ve seen or read claims that you dismiss as outlandish.

Type “climate change” into Google. Within seconds you can find statements that the Earth is warming or that its temperatue is stable (or cooling since 1998!). You can find “proof” that the warming is caused by the sun, volcanoes, flaws in the temperature data, or fossil fuel burning. You can read that the Hockey Stick graph is broadly accurate, or that it was manipulated by the IPCC to agree with a predetermined conclusion.

Whatever you read about climate change, chances are that there’s another source saying the opposite thing. It’s not like we’re all climatologists who can see straight through misinformation. So how do you possibly sort out what to believe?

When people ask me this question, I invariably respond with, “Assess the credibility.”

The ”climate change analysis” you read could be from a national academy of science, or from a blogger. It could be from an atmospheric physicist or a economist. It could be from a scientific journal or a political think-tank. If we calculate credibility to be “expertise + objectivity”, it’s obvious that some sources merit more weight than others.

I’ve put together a climate change credibility spectrum, inspired by Greg Craven from the Manpollo Project. This is a basic way to assess credibility and assign weight to a source. Keep in mind that this is only a guideline. The sources in the middle, especially, could be shuffled around based on the situation. The spectrum is also only used for scientific statements, such as “the Arctic is losing sea ice”. Matters of policy, such as ”cap-and-trade is our best bet”, are much more a personal opinion.

* At the bottom of the spectrum we have **the individual.** This is someone with no formal education in the field of climate science. Bloggers generally fall into this category, which is why I plan to refrain from creating my own “expert analysis” of data on this blog.
* Above that we have **the professional.** This is someone who is not a scientist, but is in an occupation that requires them to keep up to date with science. High school teachers are a good example, as well as politicians or CEOs.
* Then we have the **non-publishing scientist.** Someone with a scientific background, but who is not currently publishing peer-reviewed literature, does not necessarily follow methods which are accepted by the scientific community. They have a good knowledge of science, but lack the “peer-reviewed” credential.
* Above that is **the publishing scientist** in any area, such as medicine, physics, or chemistry. Even if they do not study climate change, they have the basic scientific background to understand it, as well as the “peer-reviewed” check on their scientific methods.
* The **publishing Earth scientist** specializes in areas closer to climate science, such as geography, geology, or environmental science. They have a more in-depth knowledge of the way the biogeochemical systems of the Earth work.
* The **publishing climatologist** (or atmospheric physicist/radiative physicist/any other area that’s so relevant to climatology that we can basically classify it as climatology) is the best you can get in terms of the individual professional. They understand more about climate change, and have more widely approved methods, than any other scientist.
* Above the individuals come groups. **Universities** are generally quite up-to-date in their scientific knowledge, as they are training scientists-to-be, and have a large number of scientific professors behind their statements.
* **Peer-reviewed scientific articles** are often written by more than one scientist, and have undergone an extensive review process. These articles minimize bias or misconceptions as much as science possibly can.
* Finally, **professional scientific organizations** employ thousands of publishing scientists, have massive reputations to uphold, and often publish their own peer-reviewed journals. Their statements carry more weight than any others.

This isn’t to say that the NAS is infallible, or that the blogger is always wrong. The credibility spectrum is simply a tool used to decide how much weight to give a statement.

So go do some reading. Do some searching and reading and watching. See what individuals, professionals, groups and scientific bodies are saying about climate change. Assess their credentials. Decide who you’re going to believe.

[MrDibble]

@Poptech

Well since we don’t care about your opinion and are dealing with facts. E&E is peer-reviewed,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

Yeah, EBSCO - the company that never met a military contract they didn’t like. Everyone in the field (yeah, us elitists) knows that EBSCO is a lot more … forgiving than SCI.

As for Google Scholar, if it was up to Google we would have free access to every peer-reviewed journal ever published. Instead of having to pay multi-billion dollar corporations for access to scienctific information but elitists like yourself prefer it that way, I know.

What, pay for citation indexes - like, EBSCO, you mean? Perish the thought. I have free access to SCI, by the way - it comes from being involved with an actual academic institution. Elitist, I know - and that’s how I like it. Science should be elitist. Like, I think you should at least have a science degree before you open your trap about science matters, the way you should have a medical degree or a law degree before your opinion in those fields carries any weight, either.

[MrDibble]

@Poptech

This has never been proven and I have yet to be given a scientific method for determining who a climate scientist is.

So what?

[tomndebb]

This thread may set the pissing contest record for this board. (We’ve had threads go longer that turned into pissing contests, but none that were started as pissing contests and then ran their entire length in that mode.)

It would be nice if a genuine discussion with a specific point was posted (from either side) and then actually debated.

[ /Modding ]

[Poptech]

@BrainGlutton

ClimateSight sets it out pretty clearly:

• The publishing climatologist (or atmospheric physicist/radiative physicist/any other area that’s so relevant to climatology that we can basically classify it as climatology) is the best you can get in terms of the individual professional.

So all of the following would not be considered climatologists then,

Chris Field, Ph.D. Biology (IPCC Co-chair of Working Group 2)
Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (NASA GISS, RealClimate.org)
James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA GISS)
James Lovelock, Ph.D. Medicine
Joe Romm, Ph.D. Physics (Climate Progress)
John Holden, Ph.D. Theoretical Plasma Physics
Joshua B. Halpern, Ph.D. Physics (Rabett Run)
Kerry Emanuel, Ph.D. Meteorology
Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Science
Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology (RealClimate.org)
Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics
Rajendra Pachauri, Ph.D. Industrial Engineering, Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (IPCC Chairman, 2007-Present)
Richard Alley, Ph.D. Geology
Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology
Robert Watson, Ph.D. Chemistry (IPCC Chairman, 1997-2002)
Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D. Oceanography
Steven Schneider, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering and Plasma Physics
Susan Solomon, Ph.D. Chemistry
Tom Chalko, Ph.D. Laser Holography

So you agree that we should not accept any of the above as climatologists.

[Poptech]

@MrDibble

Yeah, EBSCO - the company that never met a military contract they didn’t like.

Typical smear.

Everyone in the field (yeah, us elitists) knows that EBSCO is a lot more … forgiving than SCI. What, pay for citation indexes - like, EBSCO, you mean? Perish the thought. I have free access to SCI, by the way - it comes from being involved with an actual academic institution. Elitist, I know - and that’s how I like it. Science should be elitist.

You mean pay for SCI like your academic institution does or anyone else who wants to use it. I understand you need to control the public’s access to information too bad Google is changing that and there is nothing you can do about it. SCI subjectively censoring peer-reviewed journals does not mean they do not exist or are not peer-reviewed,

Science Citation Index (SCI) indexes only 3,700 peer-reviewed journals using a subjective inclusion process. There are thousands of peer-reviewed journals that are not included - Scopus indexes 16,500 peer-reviewed journals.

Like, I think you should at least have a science degree before you open your trap about science matters, the way you should have a medical degree or a law degree before your opinion in those fields carries any weight, either.

Aw you made me cry. Too bad I have a degree in Computer Science.

[MrDibble]

@Poptech

Aw you made me cry. Too bad I have a degree in Computer Science.

:dubious:

[Lobohan]

@MrDibble

:dubious:

Yeah, I was going to mention that. Poptech, is that a joke? Because it would appear to be amazingly silly.

[Poptech]

@Lobohan

Yeah, I was going to mention that. Poptech, is that a joke? Because it would appear to be amazingly silly.

Computer modeling has nothing to do with Climate Science? I know computer science has nothing to do with climate science based on the computer illiteracy among the scientists creating them but I thought you knew this.

[Lobohan]

@Poptech

Computer modeling has nothing to do with Climate Science? I know computer science has nothing to do with climate science based on the computer illiteracy among the scientists creating them but I thought you knew this.

Computer modeling does. But only specifically someone who works on the computer models that climate scientists use. Otherwise, what would you know about them? I’m assuming you don’t work as a modeler for a peer-reviewed climate scientist.

Do you not understand that? You’re an unqualified amateur, your opinion on the science is meaningless. So is mine, which is why I depend on scientific consensus.

Why do you, an unqualified amateur, decide to ignore consensus and go with the tiny minority view? What makes the 1% correct when the 99% say otherwise? Just because 1% say something you want to be true, doesn’t mean you should ignore the vast, vast majority of actual experts saying the opposite.

[MrDibble]

@Poptech

Computer modeling has nothing to do with Climate Science?

Are you saying you work on climatology modelling? Because all the climatologists I know write their own systems. And it’s much more Information Science than Compute Science for the guys I know.

I know computer science has nothing to do with climate science based on the computer illiteracy among the scientists creating them but I thought you knew this.

Pointless ad hominem, and not remotely true, anyway. It’s hard to get a graduate degree in climatology without a lot of computer work, nowadays.

[Poptech]

@Lobohan

Computer modeling does. But only specifically someone who works on the computer models that climate scientists use. Otherwise, what would you know about them? I’m assuming you don’t work as a modeler for a peer-reviewed climate scientist.

Do you not understand that? You’re an unqualified amateur, your opinion on the science is meaningless. So is mine, which is why I depend on scientific consensus.

Why do you, an unqualified amateur, decide to ignore consensus and go with the tiny minority view? What makes the 1% correct when the 99% say otherwise? Just because 1% say something you want to be true, doesn’t mean you should ignore the vast, vast majority of actual experts saying the opposite.

ROFLMAO!! You do realize computer code is computer code, all that is needed to understand the code is to understand the programming language it is written in. I realize you have been brainwashed to think differently. There is no consensus let alone some magical 99% nonsense.

[x-ray_vision]

@Poptech

There is no consensus let alone some magical 99% nonsense.

What is your goal in these threads? Is it to make everyone aware that there is no consensus in regards to global warming? Anything else? You got insulted by being called a denier, so are or aren’t you? Folks have linked to other things you’ve written on the internet and it doesn’t seem you’re as interested in educating deniers about the other side of the coin, so it seems your purpose goes beyond alerting everyone that there is no consensus. What take home message are you hoping we walk away with after reading these threads?

[Lobohan]

@Poptech

ROFLMAO!! You do realize computer code is computer code, all that is needed to understand the code is to understand the programming language it is written in.

It’s amazing that I have to tell you this, but you understand English, that doesn’t mean you can meaningfully interpret complex technical issues written in English. You don’t know enough (assuming you aren’t a climate scientist) to understand the issues that lead them to code things the way they did. Sorry, but this is getting embarrassing for you at this point.

I realize you have been brainwashed to think differently. There is no consensus let alone some magical 99% nonsense.

There is a consensus. You have pointed to lists that are lies, misrepresentations and ignorant misunderstandings. The journals are full of work that supports climate change. They are not full of things that detract from it.

As I said, since you and I are too ignorant to understand the science, consensus is what we should rely on. I’m glad you think you’re qualified, but confidence doesn’t equal ability. Get a PhD and start publishing in the field and I’ll begin to value your personal opinion more. (Although, you’d still be part of the laughably small 1% in the denier camp.)

[MrDibble]

@Poptech

ROFLMAO!! You do realize computer code is computer code, all that is needed to understand the code is to understand the programming language it is written in.

A large computer model, such as a climatology model, is so much more than just the code. You’d know this if you worked in the field.

[Marley23]

@Poptech

Really so what am I denying exists?

Anthropogenic global warming. You either don’t believe it exists or you have done a bad job titling your thread. If you have any more questions for me, ask them in ATMB.

[tomndebb]

@Poptech

I realize you have been brainwashed to think differently.

I am not brainwashed, just bored with having to read the schoolyard squabbling with no point. Your comment is out of line and you are seriously jeopardizing this thread, which will be closed if you continue.

[ /Moderating ]

[BrainGlutton]

@Poptech

ROFLMAO!! You do realize computer code is computer code, all that is needed to understand the code is to understand the programming language it is written in.

:dubious: That’s like saying that to understand Newton’s Principia Mathematica, all you need is knowledge of Latin.

[Cort]

@Lobohan

Do you not understand that? You’re an unqualified amateur, your opinion on the science is meaningless. So is mine, which is why I depend on scientific consensus.

As, presumably, does Poptech, on absolutely everything else.