[THS] Scientific expertise lacking among doubters of climate change

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, says Stanford-led
analysis

June 25th, 2010 in Space & Earth / Environment

The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have
contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in
climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study
led by Stanford researchers.

In a quantitative assessment - the first of its kind to address this issue - the team
analyzed the number of research papers published by more than 900 climate
researchers and the number of times their work was cited by other scientists.

"These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or
tenure decisions," said William Anderegg, lead author of a paper published in the
online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.

Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by
each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate
researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average
about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral
candidate in biology.

Prominence was assessed by taking the four most frequently cited papers published
in any field by each scientist - not just climate science publications - and tallying the
number of times those papers were cited by other researchers. Papers by climate
researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more
often than papers by the unconvinced.

The scientists whose work was analyzed included all the researchers involved in
producing the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
working group that assessed the evidence for and against human involvement in
climate change, as well as any climate researchers who signed a major public
statement disagreeing with the findings of the panel's report.

The top 100

The Stanford team also determined the top 100 climate researchers, based on the
total number of climate related publications each had, which produced an even more
telling result, Anderegg said.

"When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about
anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100
surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC's assessment," he
said. That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used
different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said.

"We really wanted to bring the expertise dimension into this whole discussion,"
Anderegg said. "We hope to put to rest the notion that keeps being repeated in the
media and by some members of the public that 'the scientists disagree' about
whether human activity is contributing to climate change."

"I never object to quoting opinions that are 'way out.' I think there is nothing wrong
with that," said Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and a coauthor of the paper
in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "But if the media doesn't report
that something is a 'way out' opinion relative to the mainstream, then how is the
average person going to know the relative credibility of what is being said?"

"It is sad that we even have to do this," said Schneider. "[Too much of] the media
world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science."

The Stanford team is prepared for the doubters of anthropogenic climate change to
object to their data.

"I think the most typical criticism of a paper like this - not necessarily in academic
discourse, but in the broader context - is going to be that we haven't addressed if
these sorts of differences could be due to some sort of clique or, at the extreme, a
conspiracy of the researchers who are convinced of climate change," Anderegg said.

"When you stop to consider whether some sort of 'group think' really drives these
patterns and could it really exist in science in general, the idea is really pretty
laughable," he said. "All of the incentives in science are exactly the opposite.

"If you were a young researcher and had the data to overturn any of the mainstream
paradigms, or what the IPCC has done, you would become absolutely famous," he
said. "Everyone wants to be the next Darwin, everyone wants to be the next
Einstein."

Schneider said that the team took pains to avoid any sort of prejudice or skewed data
in their analysis. In selecting which of the researchers who signed petitions or
statements disagreeing with the findings of the IPCC to include in the study, they
omitted those who had no published papers in the climate literature.

"We only picked those who had at least some credentials in climate. So we went way
beyond neutral, in their direction, bending over backward," Schneider said. "The
doubters of anthropogenic climate change will claim foul anyway.

"They can say that climate researchers convinced of anthropogenic climate change
are just trying to deny publication of the doubters' opinion, but let them go out and
do a study to prove it," he said. "It is of course not true."

Provided by Stanford University

"Scientific expertise lacking among 'doubters' of climate change, says Stanford-led
analysis." June 25th, 2010. www.physorg.com/news196700474.html