![]() ![]() As climatologists Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann wisely said, peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition. However, as thousands of papers are published every month, and they’re generally studying the frontier of their field, it’s inevitable that some of them will be proven wrong later. This is the minimum level of credibility from which I recommend citing scientific claims. ![]() Instead of just having the name of an expert attached to them, their methods and conclusions have been evaluated for robustness and accuracy. These scientists write peer-reviewed papers, published in journals like Nature and Science, which are another step up the credibility spectrum. Treating them as an expert in evolution, therefore, would be illogical. For example, it’s very easy for a computer scientist to go through ten years of university without studying any biology at all. Just because someone has a PhD in one area of science doesn’t mean that they are an expert in all areas. The scientific community starts with scientists, and I want to stress that this category only includes scientists with experience in the issue at hand. The credibility spectrum is sort of split into two: the scientific community, and the non-scientific community. Matters of policy, like “we should adopt a cap-and-trade system”, are on a much more equal playing field – because they’re opinions, not facts. Keep in mind that it is only used for scientific statements, like “Arctic summer sea ice will be gone by 2030″. This is a basic way to assess credibility and assign weight to a source. I’ve put together a climate change credibility spectrum, inspired by Greg Craven from the Manpollo Project. If we calculate credibility to be “expertise + objectivity”, it’s obvious that some sources merit more weight than others. It could be from a scientific journal or a political think-tank. It could be from an atmospheric physicist or a economist. ![]() The ”climate change analysis” you read could be from a national academy of science, or from a blogger. When people ask me this question, I invariably respond with, “Assess the credibility.” So how do you possibly sort out what to believe? It’s not like we’re all climatologists who can see straight through misinformation. Whatever you read about climate change, chances are that there’s another source saying the opposite thing. 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. You can find “proof” that the warming is caused by the sun, volcanoes, flaws in the temperature data, or fossil fuel burning. Within seconds you can find statements that the Earth is warming or that its temperatue is stable (or cooling since 1998!). Let’s face it, there’s a lot of “climate science” out there that’s absolute rubbish. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |