![]() One primary flaw, she wrote in comments to a story on Collide-a-Scape, a blog by former Aububon editor Keith Kloor, is that many of the researchers grouped in the study’s database as supportive of mainstream climate science - specifically on the IPCC’s latest AR4 report - are not experts involved in the “detection” or “attribution” of human-caused warming. Sign up for our weekly email newsletter and never miss a story. The climate is changing, and our journalists are here to help you make sense of it. Not all the criticisms came from climate contrarians, clearly the group most targeted by the work.įor instance, Judith Curry, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech who supports the scientific evidence for human-caused warming but has called for more openness among climate scientists and engaged skeptics, criticized the PNAS study on a few fronts. Most objections focused on its methodology but some expressed doubt that it is the sort of policy perspective the premier scientific journal of the National Academy of Sciences should be publishing in the first place. The study had scarcely gone public on June 21 before the blogosphere erupted with analyses and a fair number of criticisms. Bloggers Erupt, Not Solely Climate Skeptics The study, analyzing the work of more than 1,300 climate researchers and entitled “Expert credibility in climate change,” is available as a PDF. Researchers who are most skeptical of the IPCC’s conclusions, on the other hand, have published little and have been cited much less often in the scientific literature. The primary conclusions: climate researchers who have published the most and been cited the most are nearly unanimous in their agreement with the latest conclusions of the IPCC. The research, published in the respected “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,” PNAS, argues that the differences between the two groups are striking. His results are certain not to please all parties in the contentious climate change arena, including among those who fall into the category of being “convinced” by the scientific evidence. Is there a difference in scientific expertise between those who subscribe to the view that humans are significantly driving up the globe’s thermostat and those who are skeptical or incredulous?Īnderegg, who studies biology at Stanford University under well-known climate researcher Stephen Schneider, teamed up with researchers at Stanford, the University of Toronto, and The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to find out. What makes someone who speaks or writes about the climate a climate expert? ![]() As polls indicate that fewer Americans say they see solid evidence for global warming, and as climate change skeptics have grown emboldened in the wake of last fall’s hacked e-mail episode at the University of East Anglia, Stanford grad student Bill Anderegg pursued a few simple questions:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |