FW: another reply
Glenn Hampson
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:gham...@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 9:47 AM
To: 'SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV' <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV>
Subject: another reply
Hi David,
(I’m hoping this email gets through---I just got another bounce message.) I agree with Matt. You can’t just lob out smoke bombs like this and then retreat for lack of time! Please do provide some references. Science and the public deserve an honest debate of facts and perspectives---on that much we totally agree and I appreciate your skepticism. But here’s what you’re alleging, which needs substantiation:
- Half the US population skeptical of climate change. Evidence to the contrary is in 2016 polls from Gallup, Pew and Yale----http://bit.ly/2nXmR2f, http://pewrsr.ch/2dOkYCe and http://bit.ly/2tG8uTT).
- The reason “why a large majority of academic scientists believe in human caused climate change,” is that “they fall into the Liberal Democrat category. That academics are overwhelmingly liberal is well established. I have seen polls suggesting that the fraction is over 90%.” A Pew research poll from 2010 put this number at 55-81 percent, depending on hard affiliation or “leans toward.” But let’s say 90 percent is correct for the sake of argument. I’ll even give you 100 percent. Are you saying the research work of these scientists is biased because of their political affiliation? Let me throw you a lifeline here: I do think there’s research suggesting there may be bias in some social science fields but I’m not aware of any research alleging bias in the natural sciences (or climate research specifically). And there was a Cato study done about eight years ago suggesting a publication bias in climate research---that studies concluding climate change will be “worse than expected” are more likely to get published. But I’m not aware of any research that supports your bias charge. References please.
- “There are polls suggesting that the majority of working meteorologists do not accept the so-called ‘consensus’ view.” I assume you are referring here to the 2009 survey of members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Here’s what the Guardian said about the Heartland Institute’s take on this survey: “Predictably, many climate contrarians have already misrepresented this paper. In fact, the Heartland Institute (of Unabomber billboard infamy) misrepresented the study so badly (and arguably impersonated the AMS in a mass emailing), the AMS executive director (who is a co-author of the paper) took the unusual step of issuing a public reprimand against their behavior.” The article goes on to explain that only 13 percent of AMS members are actual climate experts. Among the AMS members who have actually published climate research, 93 percent agree with the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. Among the most important reasons for dissent among non-expert AMS members was their political ideology.
- And finally, you write “I am not sure why you think climate scientists would know more about what the basic scientific arguments are then I do, given that argument is my field, not theirs. I know a great deal less about climate models, or hurricanes, or temperature statistical models, or radiation physics, etc., than the various experts in those things, but I know a great deal more about the logic of science. It is also worth pointing out that the scientific issues are so varied that everyone is a novice in most of it. In that sense there is no such thing as a climate scientist.” To this David, I say bravo. The world needs people like you who are excited by science and believe---rightly I think---that science belongs to the world and not to the priesthood of academia. That said, when we’re debating issues like this, outside the channels of peer review like we are, then it’s important for policymakers to recognize the difference between actual science and citizen science. You and I are solidly in the latter camp on this issue. You have a right to contribute to this conversation, but when you’re referenced by the Heartland Institute as an actual climate scientist (and yes, there is such a thing), you do damage to the legitimate scientific discourse that needs to happen on this issue. Still, I say, carry on---but please, in service to science, consider doing it through science channels so your work can be properly critiqued before it gets intertwined with the public (and political) debate.
All the best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 6:05 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Note that the claim does not refer to quality of the scientist's work, just to their assessment of the overall issue of whether or not humans are causing (dangerous) climate change. It may also relate to the choice of problem to address, as Kuhn pointed out re dominant paradigms.
This conjecture is my own observation. I could cite some of my research but do not have the time at present.
David
On Feb 13, 2018, at 8:40 AM, Matthew Shapiro <msha...@iit.edu> wrote:
Claims that academic scientists' conclusions regarding climate change are a function of their political ideology needs substantiation. It is also unclear how this might vary across disciplines. Citations, please.
Matt
<image.png>
--
Matthew A. Shapiro, PhD
Associate Professor of Political Science
Illinois Institute of Technology
3301 S. Dearborn St, SH 116
Chicago, IL 60616
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:38 AM, David Wojick <dwo...@craigellachie.us> wrote:
Glenn,
Your Pew political poll numbers make my point nicely. If we assume that all four groups are of equal size then the fraction that believe that humans are causing climate change is roughly 50%. Note too that this includes what are called "lukewarmers" who believe the change is either relatively unimportant or even benign, which is not a small group. This leaves the fraction that believes that urgent drastic action is called for relatively smaller.
I also think that it explains why a large majority of academic scientists believe in human caused climate change, namely that they fall into the Liberal Democrat category. That academics are overwhelmingly liberal is well established. I have seen polls suggesting that the fraction is over 90%.
The "97% of scientists believe in human caused climate change" studies by Cook and others are rightly regarded as political by the skeptics and there is a large body of critical work. My estimate is 80%, in keeping with the Pew numbers. Note too that the academic science community is considerably smaller than the overall science community. For example, there are polls suggesting that the majority of working meteorologists do not accept the so-called "consensus" view.
I am not sure why you think climate scientists would know more about what the basic scientific arguments are then I do, given that argument is my field, not theirs. I know a great deal less about climate models, or hurricanes, or temperature statistical models, or radiation physics, etc., than the various experts in those things, but I know a great deal more about the logic of science. It is also worth pointing out that the scientific issues are so varied that everyone is a novice in most of it. In that sense there is no such thing as a climate scientist.
But if you want to see a skeptical scientist in action just YouTube search on "Roy Spencer" who has about 40 videos (and several books). He even has two videos debating "consensus" scientists. I happen to be cataloging skeptical science videos and there look to be over 1000 on YouTube alone. I hope to build a portal that makes them all searchable by topic.
I mentioned earlier that the satellite observations versus the surface temperature statistical models was a big issue. Spencer is the father of the NASA satellite data while the "consensus" leader James Hansen built one of the three primary statistical models, the NASA one. It is an elegant juxtaposition.
Enough for now.
David
Begin forwarded message:From: "Glenn Hampson" <gham...@nationalscience.org>
Date: February 12, 2018 11:05:48 PM EST
To: "'David Wojick'" <dwo...@CRAIGELLACHIE.US>
Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisorsHi David,
Would you mind forwarding this email to the SciSP list? I don’t think it went through yesterday (it got to you, I hope, and I know it made it through to the rscomm listserv); three of my email replies are hung up somewhere in the SciSP system.
Many thanks,
Glenn
From: Glenn Hampson [mailto:ghampson@nationalscience.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 1:35 PM
To: 'David Wojick' <dwo...@CRAIGELLACHIE.US>; 'SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV' <SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV>
Cc: 'rsc...@googlegroups.com' <rsc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Hi David,
Can you please add some references to your last email so we’re not debating apples and oranges here? I just can’t agree with your statements as presented.
As you know, there has long been a partisan divide in the US on the topic of climate change. You can pretty much pick your poll---they all show the same thing. A Gallup poll from last June (http://bit.ly/2nXmR2f) showed that 66% of Democrats versus only 18% of Republicans worry “a great deal” about global warming or climate change (there are also <image004.png>differences that break along geographic, age and gender lines, less so along education lines). In a Yale survey from about the same time “more than half of Americans (58%) believe climate change is mostly human caused. That’s the highest level measured since our surveys began in 2008. By contrast, only 30% say it is due mostly to natural changes in the environment, matching the lowest level measured in our November 2016 survey.” In a Pew poll from 2016---http://pewrsr.ch/2dOkYCe---many other nuances of this debate are broken out as well, such as who should be in charge of formulating climate change policy (who do you trust?).
From all this, I can’t find evidence to support your contention that half the US population skeptical of climate change. Please let me know where that number comes from.
Given there are divisions in how we interpret this debate, there has been some interesting work in the past few years about how to break through information bubbles---how our opinions of issues like this are greatly influenced by the people in our “circle.” For this reason, reaching these influencers is a key strategy for improving climate change communication---encouraging the Kochs and others to use their influence to help reduce skepticism might be a good start.
I do completely agree with you on the partisan framing of these issues, however. The Yale poll showed exactly this affect---that people do indeed agree on the general outlines of this issue and the need for solutions, but when framed in a partisan manner, this support retreated to partisan boundaries. So getting the pejoratives (and perceived pejoratives) out of this conversation---and others---would be a great start. Getting rid of the imprecise words, like “hoax,” would also help. It may indeed mean different things to different people. To President Trump, it means this:
<image006.png>
Finally, to your assertion that the scientific debate on this issue is “wide and deep,” it would help if you could get a climate scientist on this thread who’s willing to address your specific disagreements point for point. Until then, here are the facts the rest of the climate change community is working with:
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
Sincerely,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)<image007.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: Science of Science Policy Listserv [mailto:SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV] On Behalf Of David Wojick
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 11:31 AM
To: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn,
Unfortunately, the hoax claim is made against the claim that humans are causing potentially catastrophic climate change, such that immediate drastic action is needed, especially decarbonization of the global energy system. Thus agreeing that humans may be causing a small amount of climate change does not automatically nullify the hoax claim.
I think that the hoax claim is semantically incorrect because it implies that those raising the alarm know that what they say is false, which is certainly not true. The hoax claim is just the usual political hyperbole for a disagreement. (So is your use of the term "far right" for that matter. Polls indicate that something like half of the US adult population is skeptical of the climate change alarm calls.)
If we translate the hyperbole into non-pejorative forms then the debate is still there, wide and deep, in the public and also in the science community.
David
At 12:23 PM 2/11/2018, Glenn Hampson wrote:Hi David, Dan,
I don’t want to protract my objections---I’ve taken enough of everyone’s air time. But I also don’t want the final word on this topic to be that “the scientific community is just as divided as the policy community.†On what issue? Again, certainly not climate change. As Dan noted in his email, the scientific community is NOT divided on the central issue of climate change---that humans are causing this. Where the science community IS uncertain is about how much and how fast---I wouldn’t call it a “fractious cacophony,†though. It’s just science looking for firm answers and adjusting predictions as more data fills in the models.
And that’s a pretty big piece of common ground that policy makers should be able to build upon. For years, the main roadblock to climate change action in the US has been the far right’s insistence that climate change science was a hoax and that there was much disagreement about what forces were responsible for this. Maybe we’ll start seeing a change with the Trump administration starting to ask the “how warm is too warm?†question. Hopefully anyway. We could also spend the next 20 years debating the pros and cons of temperature rise---more oil drilling in the arctic versus sinking coastal regions, failing crops, and the risk of triggering a runaway greenhouse effect that could turn Earth into Venus in a short period of time. But at least this debate will be a step in the right direction, focusing on which models are more accurate instead of whether the entire debate is just a fairy tale.
The movement in this direction is just a baby step so far. Maybe David, Dan and other policy gurus can encourage policy makers on both sides of the aisle reach this first plateau of agreeing that change is happening and that humans are the cause. This would be a huge step forward and would open the door to real debate about what steps we should take next.
Again, thanks for your indulgence---sorry if I’ve carried on too much.
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image008.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
From: David Wojick [ mailto:dwo...@craigellachie.us]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2018 3:57 AM
To: Glenn Hampson <gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG>
Cc: SCI...@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV
Subject: Re: [scisip] Canada's three chief scientist advisors
Glenn,
It is not a matter of skeptics debating scientists as there are plenty of skeptical scientists. These skeptical scientists do debate the "consensus" scientists, but without resolution of differences. As a result the scientific community is just as divided as the policy community so there is no "one clear voice" in the offing.
The policy implications certainly color people's judgement, including within the scientific community, in fact polls indicate that they are a primary determinant. But this is only possible because the science is largely vague and speculative, which is characteristic of environmental impact forecasting. If you look at the specific scientific questions that are being debated, it is easy to see that they are truly debatable.
If you want to get the flavor of the scientific debate, then Judy Curry's blog is the best place to see it. She was Chair of Georgia Tech's Atmospheric Sciences Department. All sides are pretty well represented.
Here are two current examples:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/02/05/marvel-et-al-s-new-paper-on-estimating-climate-sensitivity-from-observations/
https://judithcurry.com/2018/02/10/sea-level-rise-acceleration-or-not-part-iii-19th-20th-century-observations/
David
On Feb 9, 2018, at 5:38 PM, Glenn Hampson < gham...@NATIONALSCIENCE.ORG> wrote:Hi Dan,
I’ll jump in on David’s behalf too. He’s way smarter than I’ll ever be. I secretly hope he’ll be willing to use his brain power and influence to encourage the Koch brothers to get on the right side of history.
What you’re suggesting here makes sense for policy development (in an ideal world, as Chris notes)---I tried to say something similar in my reply to Brooke. But to be clear, what I’m clamoring about from my soapbox with regard to David’s climate skeptic work is that there should be a scientific debate about climate change and a policy debate, and never the two should meet. To the extent the work of David and other Heartland Institute analysts has contaminated the policy debate, this is an unfortunate occurrence that has made policy development much more difficult---or worse. If their true service is to science and not some preset agenda, then as a matter of protocol, science skeptics should first debate their ideas with scientists, and then let the science community inform policy makers with one clear voice. This has nothing to do with excess objectivity, framing, abundant facts, worldviews, assumptions, contradictions, and what not---it just has to do with the proper conduct of science.
Do you disagree?
Best,
Glenn
Glenn Hampson
Executive Director
Science Communication Institute (SCI)
Program Director
Open Scholarship Initiative (OSI)
<image002.jpg>
2320 N 137th Street | Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 417-3607 | gham...@nationalscience.org | nationalscience.org
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
########################################################################
To send to the list, address your message to: SCI...@listserv.nsf.gov
To subscribe to the list: send the text “subscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov
To unsubscribe: sent the text “unsubscribe SCISIP” to list...@listserv.nsf.gov