Take a COOL Guess – the Fun Quiz on Clean Energy. Today’s Topic: Studies on Global Warming
Question: In 2013, there were 10,883 peer-reviewed scientific studies to the effect that global warming is real and caused by humans. In the same year, how many such studies took the opposite position?
(New 2GreenEnergy readers should be aware that “Take a Cool Guess” is a regular feature here; there are many dozens of such “fun quizzes on clean energy” linked above.)
Answer: Can be found at Clean Energy Answers.
Relevance: According to this article:
[T]he only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, [geochemist James Lawrence Powell] went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013 (more on his methodology here), and (derived the answer linked above).
Powell notes that very, very few of climate change deniers–who tend more towards filling Congressional hearings and cable “news” networks with their own carbon dioxide emissions–have ever written a peer-reviewed scientific article in support of their “position.” That’s because if you write an article subject to peer review for a scientific publication, you have to back it up with…evidence.
Many of the articles he reviewed contained multiple authors, which would yield an even starker divide (if that can be imagined). Powell also fairly debunks the two contrarian, single-authored studies as well.
Lindsay Abrams, assistant Editor at Salon, sums it up nicely, quoting Powell:
- There is a mountain of scientific evidence in favor of anthropogenic global warming and no convincing evidence against it.
- Those who deny anthropogenic global warming have no alternative theory to explain the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature.
These two facts together mean that the so-called debate over global warming is an illusion, a hoax conjured up by a handful of apostate scientists and a misguided and sometimes colluding media, aided and abetted by funding from fossil fuel companies and right wing foundations.
It’s hard to believe that there is still a debate about the existence of Anthropogenic warming!
The science has been broadly settled for a decade or more, and it seems clear that the only reason there is a debate is that vested interests are trying to fudge and confuse the issue in the public mind so as to resist changes adverse to their own interests.
In Europe, climate change deniers are regarded by most as cranks with little credibility, and even right wing politicians with an ideological antipathy to political intervention in the economy are generally not foolish enough to deny that human activity bears some responsibility for climate change.
In other fields, experts are responsible for the accuracy of their “expert opinions” so that if a civil engineer builds a bridge that collapses due to a design fault, that engineer will face a very heavy liability claim, and possibly criminal sanction for the failure.
Is there any way that “expert” consultants paid to influence political decisions in favour of the status quo and against taking steps to limit or mitigate climate change might be held similarly liable?
Perhaps when they call into question the integrity of those publishing studies ratifying the concept of anthropogenic climate change, they might be subject to libel / slander claims?
Yes, exactly: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/09/3621026/always-read-the-comments/
I’m sure it’s not your intention, but what you are suggesting would censor, or deter all debate, whether scientific or political.
The most disastrous event that has occurred as a result of politicians accepting the advice of “climate change experts”, was in Australia.
Timothy Fannery, a famous Global Warming advocate, and highly pain consultant to both the Queensland and Federal Labour/green governments, persuaded the State of Queensland to neglect the protective levies, as due to climate change and bad environmental mining practices, the state had entered into a period of “irreversible and permanent drought”.
The money earmarked for protective levees was diverted to pay for a solar powered desalination project. (swept away by the floods).
This wasn’t a bad prediction, since the state had been suffering from a decade long drought and young voters, couldn’t remember the floods old timers croaked on about.
But merely two years later the floods hit Queensland with a vengeance ! The loss of life and property was unprecedented. Since then, there have been several more years of devastating floods.
Was Tim Flanney and his supporters dismayed, and apologetic? Nope, instead he just revised his predictions claiming that these events were the product of the “climate change ” (no longer global warming) that he had always predicted !
He then announced that the floods were the product of man-made climate change. The proof was evident, since these were the worst floods in 120 years ! Now who can argue with logic like that ?
Naturally, being Australians, the general public didn’t sue, arrest or lynch Timothy Flannery, but did take out their anger on the Queensland government, in the largest historic political landslide victory for a conservative government in Australian history.
Even the best of experts, are just human and subject to error. As long as the error is the result of honest conviction, it’s too much to ask of any expert to pay for not being perfect.
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/07/20/scientists-should-actively-try-to-disprove-the-theory-of-global-warming-and-climate-change/.
Craig, as usual, you raise an interesting issue. In response I would pose an observation,
” When does analysis, become propaganda ? ”
I would suggest when the methodology is designed to support a particular theory, philosophy, ideology or advocacy. Or more simply put, when the analysis loses objectivity.
Climate Change (global warming) has become so highly charged with political and ideological commitment, by advocates of any particular interpretation, that a new religion has arisen. Somewhere along the line, rational discussion has been lost, in a fanatical passion to extinguish heretics.
For any “scientist” to announce “the debate is over ” , just betrayed the fundamentals of all scientific inquiry ! There is no ” science ”, beyond skeptical examination ( not even what is popularly thought of as the “Laws” of Gravity ).
But to be fair to Dr Powell, let’s examine his methodology. Dr Powell is often misquoted as saying that 99 % of scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity.
In fact Dr Powell asserted no such thing!
Only a very small group of extremists advocates assert anything of the sort. The overwhelming majority of responsible scientists, assert human activity “contributes” to climate change. There is a considerable divergence of opinion among scientists as to the extent, and scale of effects resulting from climate change. There’s also a divergence of opinion as to the ability of humans to reverse, or stabilize the effects.
But, I digress. Instead let’s take an objective appraisal of Dr Powell’s methodology. Dr Powell has worked hard to justify his conclusion. A conclusion that supported his original assumptions, and confirmed support for his beliefs.
That in itself, could create doubt as to Dr Powell’s objectivity. In coming to his conclusion, Dr Powell used the Web of Science, a Thomson Reuter’s subscription service for scientific citation indexing . Although the Web of Science is a highly respected as a useful service, it’s a very easily distroted method of conducting a survey.
All sort of errors and distortion can occur by using this method. Thomson Reuters warn that the method used by Dr Powell is likely to be distorted by many factors. Journal citation distributions are invariably highly skewed towards established journals. Editors manipulate the content of articles to favour readership expectations, especially in field-specific publications. The type and authenticity of content is easily manipulated by editorial policies making the process nontransparent.
Thomson Reuters also warns that Dr Powell’s method of assessing the content of journals, can easily produce an inaccurate, distorted analysis lacking in objectivity.
Dr Powell accepts the definition of a “Climate Scientist” as one recognized by ” Climate Science ” peers !
( While this is a widely held belief, it’s neither scientific or objective ! )
Here’s a small example from my own country. The foremost Australian “Climate Scientist” , Professor Timothy Flannery, helped frame the Copenhagen Agreement, and advised United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Australian Government. Professor Flannery is extremely active as a climate change advocate. He is regarded as an internationally recognized “Climate Scientist’ and academic. Tim Flannery is the author of more than 380 “peer reviewed ” published papers.
He’s naturally included in Dr Powell analysis. (380 times).
Curiously omitted however, is fellow Australian Professor Ian Plimer. Professor Plimer is a renowned skeptic, and despised ” climate denier “. Professor Plimer is not considered a qualified “climate Scientist ” and his work is not included in the publications counted by Dr Powell.
But here’s where the illustration of these two gentleman becomes relevant.
It would be easy to write off Professor Plimer as a crank, a miserable “denier” , lacking the academic standing to challenge the Illustrious ” Professor Flannery” , until the two men’s academic records are scrutinized.
Once all the PR and political hype is stripped away, “Professor Flannery ” is revealed as an ” associate Professor ‘ at a small, second tier, University with a degree in Paleontology ! He also has a history of disastrously inaccurate climate predictions.
In contrast, Professor Plimer holds full Professorial tenure at a prestigious first tier university. with qualifications in Geology, Geophysics, Chemistry, Earth Science, Geology, Mining Engineering and even Volcanology !
Now Prof Plimer maybe completely wrong, but surely his voice should be counted in any impartial analysis.
Dr Powell’s methodology, also fails to make any allowance for the vast numbers of papers, and articles published and “peer reviewed”, by employees or members of the same organizations as the authors.
Dr Powell carefully disqualifies publications or journals published by fossil fuel or similar organizations, as being “unscientific” . Yet, he includes thousands of articles published in journals published by pro-climate change organizations. A very significant proportion of these are mere copies of one another, earnestly “peer reviewed ” by colleagues.
If it sounds like I’m being harsh on Dr Powell, it’s not because I believe he’s dishonest, but because his conclusion is self-serving. ( He’s achieved the result he wanted ).
Now, that’s not scientific analysis, but it’s very effective propaganda !
Propaganda , is still propaganda, even if it’s in the right cause.
VERY interesting research by James Lawrence Powell. In my search for further information, I tried to email him; but he has an “Outlook Dinosaur” preventing me from doing so; which is a great pity.
I’d like to see his information printed in booklet form to give to all my climate-skeptic friends who obviously have a far better grasp of the science than these poor corrupted scientists.
Great Stuff JLP….
Dick,
You are evidently a “True Believer ” ! But I’m afraid any pamphlet published by Dr Powell would be unlikely to sway the opinions of well-informed climate-skeptics.
No analysis can be achieved without maintaining an open-minded and objective inclusion of all relevant information. Once any analysis begins to ‘qualify’ or select information for inclusion or exclusion based on prejudice, analysis ceases to be analysis, and becomes propaganda.
But then, if you are honest, propaganda is what you are seeking to give your skeptic friends, isn’t it ?
It’s only natural that like Dr Powell, once having formed a strong conviction, you wish to evangelize your beliefs by distributing favorable material to support those beliefs.
In time you could even publish your own favourable reveiw of Dr Powell .Your reveiw could be favourably ” peer reviewed” by your friends, fellow true believers and advocates. These numbers would further add to the seeming authenticity of Dr Powell’s methodology !
Using this information, a new study could be published, concluding that 99% of “peer reviewed ” comments, supported Dr Powell !