The scientific consensus as a gateway belief for climate change and GMOs

The scientific consensus as a gateway belief for climate change and GMOs
Greenland’s glaciers have been breaking off into the Atlantic Ocean at an accelerated pace due to the effects of climate change. Credit: Tim Norris

Public debate on scientific topics is in no short supply. Though science recognizes the evidence validating evolution, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or climate change, it does not take long to find articles or people who oppose regarded scientific facts. In many of these cases, unnecessary debate inhibits positive action. Also, confronting these debates effectively is no trivial task. Studies have shown that administering facts to people may only harden their misguided beliefs. Therefore, finding effective ways to inform the public about issues pertaining to science and society is imperative to driving support for evidence-based policies. A recent PLOS ONE article provided causal evidence that people's initial assumptions about the scientific consensus on climate change—known as a "gateway belief"—may help shape people's perceptions of climate change and make them more likely to support action.

A major motivator of climate change doubt is public misunderstanding about the on the issue. Agents of doubt have successfully promoted the false message that it is up for debate among scientists whether human action is causing climate change. This sentiment is untrue. Nine out of every 10 scientists believe that human activities are the primary driver of . However, only one in 10 Americans correctly estimates that the consensus is this high. Moreover, science demonstrates that knowledge of this consensus can influence whether people acknowledge the fact of climate change.

Testing the Gateway Belief Model

Van der Linden and colleagues hypothesized that study participants would be more convinced of the evidence behind global warming if they knew about the high scientific consensus. Thus, knowledge of the scientific consensus would serve as a gateway belief to facilitate other key beliefs about climate change and support for action. The novelty of their approach was that it would provide causal instead of correlative data—something that has remained elusive in these types of studies.

Through mathematical modeling, the scientists found a direct causal relationship between knowledge of the scientific consensus and support for public action. Also, people who learned of the scientific consensus were more likely to worry about climate change, and believe that the phenomena is happening and caused by humans.

However, following the study, the increase in support for action was not nearly as substantial as the increase in the participant's ability to correctly estimate the scientific consensus. While understanding of the scientific consensus makes some people more likely to support public action, the gateway belief model will not influence everyone. There are likely other factors involved in making someone support action.

Using the Scientific Consensus to Combat Public Misunderstanding

These results provide promise. The findings indicate that the gateway belief model can be used to inform the public and increase the likelihood that support will be generated for action to be taken. Even if the gateway belief model influences only a fraction of the population to support action, even small shifts in public support for an issue can have expansive consequences. The results beg the question, "Can the gateway belief model be extended to other science issues?"

I would argue that climate change is the most pressing issue in science, with huge impacts for society if it is not addressed in a timely manner. But public discourse on other scientific issues is fraught with similar misunderstandings. For example, data from a Pew research poll that compared differences in opinion between the public and scientists indicated that the biggest gap between the two groups was on the issue of GMOs in food. 88% of AAAS scientists think that it is safe to eat genetically modified foods, while only 37% of adults in the United States believe that it is safe—a gap of 51%. For comparison, the public/scientist gap on climate change being mostly due to human activity was 37%.

Using the scientific consensus as a gateway belief to build support for GMOs in food has not been addressed yet, but it would be interesting to examine for two key reasons. First, it is harder to promote discourse on issues such as GMOs in food because they appeal to people's core values on different levels. Most of the debate around GMOs is not actually debate about the science, but rather is a debate of values. Second, if the gateway belief model were successful in educating, then it would embolden the idea that it is an effective strategy to combat misinformation and could be extended to other issues such as vaccine denial. If it were not effective at garnering change in GMO understanding, then it would indicate differences between these issues that go beyond the misunderstanding of the scientific consensus.

Curbing Doubt with Science

When trying to communicate topics such as to the public, scientists should consider employing the gateway belief model to best understand how to drive change and engender . Assaulting people with facts is becoming an antiquated technique in science communication. While informing people of the scientific consensus is technically providing a fact, the existence of a consensus is something that cannot really be disputed, and is far enough removed from the core values of individuals. The use of the gateway belief model then allows people to acknowledge these facts on their own, which is important for maintaining them.


Explore further

Scientists' role in swaying public opinion studied

More information: "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence." PLoS ONE 10(2): e0118489. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0118489

"Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society." www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29 … science-and-society/.

"Climate Change in the American Mind: American's Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2014." Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. environment.yale.edu/climate-c … Mind-April-2014.pdf

Journal information: PLoS ONE

Citation: The scientific consensus as a gateway belief for climate change and GMOs (2015, May 18) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-05-scientific-consensus-gateway-belief-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
102 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

May 18, 2015
"88% of AAAS scientists"

88% of ALL AAAS scientists including NON experts in GMO?

Are ALL scientists in AAAS?

I think GMOs are great for food production but tossing out such poor statistics does not help science.

Some like to cite how many AMA doctors support this or that while not mentioning the low percentage of membership by physicians in the AMA.

May 18, 2015
It would also help people to know that, of the scientists that support GMOs in food, how many of them or their institutions have received grants or support from companies that stand to profit from the widespread acceptance of GMOs in food. IMHO, any scientist that has been influenced by these companies in this manner is not an unbiased source of reliable support for GMOs in food. So the more trustworthy statistic would be the percentage of unbiased scientists that support GMOs in food, not the percentage of ALL scientists.

May 18, 2015
AGW is really a con-sense-us.

May 18, 2015
the percentage of unbiased scientists that support GMOs in food,


Any scientist or experts in health and nutrition?
But then 'experts' in health and nutrition keep vacillating on what is and is not healthy. One day eggs are good, next, not.

May 18, 2015
Forget the public. Let the experts decide what they are experts on.
You don't see football players play by "public consent of what armchair coaches think is best". Why should decisions on climate policy be decided by people who know nothing about it?

If anyone is interested they can inform themselves. Fine. But it is plainly evident by the science-denier comments on here that even that is too much of an effort for many. So why should these inept people have a say?

May 18, 2015
Among other things, a look at Phys Org's marquee will provide regular, if not constant, instances of articles of the form, "Despite long held beliefs by scientists..." Even with "evidence", they get it wrong! They didn't warn about fen-phen. They didn't contradict the lie about mass production of banned weapons systems in Iraq. They "concluded" from the "evidence" that children should be exposed to allergens later rather than earlier, and that caused the number of peanut allergies to explode by at least 250 percent! "Scientists" are nothing more than a gang of liars, paid by big business to promote falsehoods. Climate change is engineered to push Liberal backed "alternative energy", what they intend to make them a bundle. In fact, chemtrails cause climate change, but they need to blame "fossil fuels" to push alternative energy.

May 18, 2015
Let the experts decide what they are experts on.


Who are the 'experts'?

What if they don't agree?


May 18, 2015

Science is not defined by consensus. Science is defined by verifiable facts, and not by climate models, extrapolations, approximations, and other non-scientific methods employed by the AGW alarmists and pseudo-scientists.

May 18, 2015
AGW is really a con-sense-us.


AGW is like a religious cult. Anyone who does not follow the cult is shunned. Anyone who questions the cult is attacked. The Priests here get upset when their religion is under-cut. Away with superstition and non-science, you Priests of Doom!


May 18, 2015
Forget the public. Let the experts decide what they are experts on.
You don't see football players play by "public consent of what armchair coaches think is best". Why should decisions on climate policy be decided by people who know nothing about it?

If anyone is interested they can inform themselves. Fine. But it is plainly evident by the science-denier comments on here that even that is too much of an effort for many. So why should these inept people have a say?


Excuse me, I live on this planet douche bag, I think that qualifies me to make MY OWN decision on "climate change". If you don't like it get someone to point a gun at my head and resort to force. You materialists are sickening fools whom would destroy the best qualities of humanity itself just to quell dissension to your ego. YOU don't get to make my decisions. Live your own life and deal with the consequences and quit crying like a baby. In other words, Man up or shut up.

May 19, 2015
I think that qualifies me to make MY OWN decision on "climate change".

No. Just being born doesn't qualify you for anything. Especially not something that requires an understanding of a bit of physics.
You can have an opinion. But an unqualified opinion is only of importance to the one holding it. No one else should be in the least influenced by unqualified opinions. (It'd be like you saying "blue is the most beautiful color" and therefore expecting that the world to officially declare that blue is the most beautiful color)

If you don't like it get someone to point a gun at my head and resort to force.

No. I'll just get decision makers to listen to ARGUMENTS based on REASON and OBSERVED FACTS instead to emotional blurbs...Violence is as useless when finding out what is right as uninformed opinion.

whom would destroy the best qualities of humanity

What are is 'human qualities' if all humans are dead? We live in reality. Reality first. Morals second.

May 19, 2015
Why should decisions on climate policy be decided by people who know nothing about it?


Why let the public decide on any policy?

http://en.wikiped...he_crowd

A large group's aggregated answers to questions involving quantity estimation, general world knowledge, and spatial reasoning has generally been found to be as good as, and often better than, the answer given by any of the individuals within the group. An explanation for this phenomenon is that there is idiosyncratic noise associated with each individual judgment, and taking the average over a large number of responses will go some way toward canceling the effect of this noise.


In other words, the public is often better at estimating things than any individual expert or group of experts - when taken as a whole.

May 19, 2015
"The squared error of the collective prediction equals the average squared error minus the predictive diversity". Therefore, when the diversity in a group is large, the error of the crowd is small.


Translated into this case: if there weren't AGW denialists, if you lack the "no effect" opinion entirely, the society is inclined to believe in grossly exaggerated climate scenarios and end up making the wrong decisions because there's nothing to balance out the doomsday preachers and other people who are completely hysterical about it.

Trying to dominate the discussion with some sort of "consensus", is not only a logical fallacy called argumentum ad populum, but dangerous and harmful because it ignores the possibility that you yourself may be ignorant in the opposite direction.


May 19, 2015
@Eikka

You are right. The change histeria in mass media serve basicly for convenient justification of the near future artificial food crisis and control over economic sovereignty of individual countries through a standard psyhologic tactic for instilment of sence of guilt. The idea is that individual countries can not deal with this practically invented problem and needed a global institution - perhaps the UN to coordinate the actions and to take control of individual countries in this direction. Hidden idea is concentration of political power and rehabilitate it official to the world community. This histeria represent th espirit of glabalism and is not inspired by noble intentions.

May 19, 2015
the public is often better at estimating things than any individual expert or group of experts


Who are the 'public'? A collection of individual, unofficial experts in science possibly, but the best experts of themselves.

May 19, 2015
In other words, the public is often better at estimating things than any individual expert or group of experts

If - and only if - the public has at least some knowledge on teh subject.

The counterexample is the "length of the chinese emperor's nose". Since the chinese emperor lived in the forbidden city (and citizens were forbidden to enter) no one on the outside had any knowledge over the actual length of the emperor's nose. So you could take a census of 10 or a billion citizens - it would tell you nothing about the subject.

Arguably the physics behind climate and climate change is not something the average citizen knows anything about.

Even if:
If you compare decision by a group of experts or mob decision. Which one would you expect to be the better decision? If you say the latter then there's no point in studying anything. And that is clearly ridiculous.

May 19, 2015
Arguably the physics behind climate and climate change is not something the average citizen knows anything about.


How can climate change 'experts' on the physics of climate change be experts on the billions of people who will adapt to changing climate?

May 20, 2015
If - and only if - the public has at least some knowledge on teh subject.


But they do. Why do you think the IPCC bothers to publish any reports in the first place?

The counterexample is the "length of the chinese emperor's nose".


That's not analogous, because by your definition nobody can know the length of the nose. In this case the experts couldn't be any wiser than the public because they have no access to the emperor either.

It actually gives the opposing point: If the climate is actually unknown to the experts too, it would be a greater mistake to trust the decisions on them, because at least the average public opinion on necessary action is likely to err on the safe side.

i.e. the average guess for the nose length won't be three miles.

Arguably the physics behind climate and climate change is not something the average citizen knows anything about.


Nearly everyone knows something about the climate.

May 20, 2015
Even if:
If you compare decision by a group of experts or mob decision. Which one would you expect to be the better decision? If you say the latter then there's no point in studying anything. And that is clearly ridiculous.


The problem, and the whole point here is that your trust in the group of experts is in itself applying the wisdom of the crowds argument. Otherwise you'd have to pick exactly one expert and hope that he has the best answers, which is clearly foolish.

Yet that's what's actually happening with the consensus argument.

In order to leverage the wisdom of crowds effect, you have to include -all- experts, including the dissident ones, including the "stupid public", to counterbalance those who have the wrong answers in the opposite direction, ie. are exaggerating.

Even within the group of experts, if you ignore 20% of members because the 80% are in "consensus", you're just going further away from what the real answer is likely to be.

May 20, 2015
The idea is, that when we ask the question such as "how many degrees will the global climate warm over the next 100 years", we can't play favorites and remain intellectually honest.

We, the questioner, don't know the answer so we can't evaluate who is closer to the truth and who is further away. If we start picking and dropping off outliers from the pool of information or experts available to us, we're trying to apply our own idea of what the result should be rather than simply looking at what is actually is. Simply assuming that the temperature IS going to rise, and by that disqualifying anyone who says it won't, will result in our final estimate being higher than it probably is.

Of course the public and the experts can be corrupted to say anything, but you'd be naive to assume it doesn't happen both ways. E.g. with well-meaning people who believe in the climate change paying other people to spread counter-propaganda.

May 20, 2015
An example of the wisdom of crowds effect is in how they found the US Navy submarine Scorpion's wreck.

http://en.wikiped...N-589%29
http://wisdomofcr...t-v.html

All the experts opinions were 5-20 miles off target, but the collective answer was 220 yards from where they actually found it.

What's astonishing about this story is that the evidence that the group was relying on in this case amounted to almost nothing. It was really just tiny scraps of data. No one knew why the submarine sank, no one had any idea how fast it was traveling or how steeply it fell to the ocean floor. And yet even though no one in the group knew any of these things, the group as a whole knew them all.



May 20, 2015
US Navy submarine Scorpion's wreck.


The thing to note here: ALL the opinions that were leveraged for the final answer were expert opinions.
In our current context that is equivalent to letting all climate scientists pool their knowledge to get at a consensus piucture (and that is EXACTLY what is happening).

It does most definietly NOT mean that if anyone without any knowledge contributes then we'll get a better answer.

May 20, 2015
letting all climate scientists pool their knowledge


But ALL climate scientists are NOT allowed to pool their knowledge.

ONLY the true believers are allowed.

May 20, 2015
The thing to note here: ALL the opinions that were leveraged for the final answer were expert opinions.


Yes, and some of the climate-naysayers are also experts regardless of being wrong. Some of them are simply playing the devil's advocate, while others are ignorant or politically motivated. What defines an expert is not who says what you believe is the right answer.

(and that is EXACTLY what is happening).


No. What's happening is that people like you are picking and choosing who they regard as experts, who they'll allow to even take part in the discussion, based on what you wish the outcome to be.

To put it otherwise, appealing to the scientific consensus as a determinant on who is an expert and who is excluded is making the answer dependent on the answer, which obviously produces arbitrary and wrong results.


May 20, 2015
It does most definietly NOT mean that if anyone without any knowledge contributes then we'll get a better answer.


That's begging the question.

You're pushing the notion of "anyone without any knowledge", when everyone has at least some knowledge, if of nothing else then of the weather they see outside their windows day-to-day.

There isn't any mystical "climate" that nobody but the secret priesthood called "the experts" or "the scientists" can percieve or measure in any way. To deny the public any knowledge of the climate is a religious argument on par with Chistians claiming that nobody can know God - so as to avoid the responsibility of proving him to the layman - yet claiming to know exactly what God wants.


May 20, 2015
To make a reductio-ad-absurdum of the consensus argument:

Suppose we have to guess the height of a tree by eyeballing it. We invite 10 lumberjacks to guess it, and quickly a consensus forms: 8 of the experts say the tree is at least 30 feet tall, while the others say it's less.

So we dismiss the two people who disagree and continue with the rest. The next question: is it more than 40 ft? Six lumberjacks disagree, so two are dismissed. Is it more than 35 ft? Four disagree, so again two leave. Is it more than 32.5 ft? Three agree, one leaves. More than 33.75?... one leaves, two remain.

Eventually the final opinion on how tall the tree is ends up being decided by just two guys, who strike a truce that the tree is 34 feet tall.

So by consensus elimination, we have decided that the tree is 34 feet tall, on the opinions of two experts out of a group of ten, by arbitrarily defining what the consensus is about and dismissing the rest.

Would you trust the answer?

May 20, 2015
when everyone has at least some knowledge

No. Being subject to gravity does not make one an expert on gravity. Being rained on every once in a while does not constitute as knowledge in climate sciences.
"Seen a very small part of it" is not the same as "knowledge".
The conclusions such people come to with respect to global climate changes is no better than "Thor's hammer causes thunder"

There isn't any mystical "climate" that nobody but the secret priesthood called "the experts" or "the scientists" can percieve

There is. It's called 'data'. (It is neither mystical nor secret. It is, however, not TRIVIAL to understand)

To deny the public any knowledge of the climate is a religious argument

It is on a par with denying the public knowledge on quantum physics. They are also subject to that (much more so than weather/climate). So you think we should put quantum physics up for democratic decision? Want me to tell you how wrong that'll turn out?

May 20, 2015
There is. It's called 'data'. (It is neither mystical nor secret. It is, however, not TRIVIAL to understand)

Well, there is data and then there is COOKED data, and that remains a secret only to those of trivial minds.

As for quantum physics, the most brilliant minds in science has and continue to qualify it with the term - THEORY and not the ridiculous "settled science". Also, for your information, at the beginning, quantum physics was up for democratic debate, because that's what intelligent people do. Guess again, how that turned out?

May 20, 2015
Suppose the original guesses for the tree were 28,29,31,33,34,35,37,39,42,43 ft

The group mean is 35.1 ft and the median is 34.5 ft

We don't need to go through all the steps to eliminate the candidates until two remains to show how the consensus argument throws the answer off. Simply ask an arbitrary question: "Is the tree taller than 35 ft?" and you've eliminated four candidates. The median answer of the remaining six is 31.5 ft and mean is 31.7 ft which are grossly different from the full group averages and from the previous expert estimate of 34 ft.

This arbitrary question that defines the consensus is similiar to asking "Is the climate going to warm more than two degrees in the coming century?".

By eliminating all the candidates who claim less warming as not being part of the climate consensus - because they're essentially saying that the climate change is not a real issue - the remaining group average will give you catastrophic predictions regardless of reality.

May 20, 2015
There is. It's called 'data'. (It is neither mystical nor secret. It is, however, not TRIVIAL to understand)


You're still claiming esoteric knowledge only accessible to "experts", which is the same argument - only worded differently.

No. Being subject to gravity does not make one an expert on gravity.


Again, define "expert". Being subject to gravity gives you at least the knowledge that things don't fall at arbitrary rates, the same as stepping outside once in a while gives you the knowledge that the winters are now shorter than they were when you were a child, and peach trees are growing where they didn't use to grow etc.

And many do read the reports and papers.

This diffuse knowledge is what the wisdom of the crowd effect operates on. Any individual answer may be grossly incorrect, but all the answers combined turn out to be robust and accurate. The ones that don't know -anything- just show up as random noise that filters out in the average.


May 20, 2015
They are also subject to that (much more so than weather/climate). So you think we should put quantum physics up for democratic decision? Want me to tell you how wrong that'll turn out?


What specific question would you ask?

If you ask for example, what is the DeBroglie wavelenght of a baseball, you'd get millions of people giving more or less random answers, thousands of people who correctly guess at least the scale or order of magnitude that the question relates to, a few hundred people giving roughly correct answers, and a handful of people who actually know the answer.

With sufficient statistical analysis of the distribution of answers, I bet you could get a fairly accurate result.

May 20, 2015
The conclusions such people come to with respect to global climate changes is no better than "Thor's hammer causes thunder"


The same applies to the "experts" when it comes to matters outside of their immediate area of expertise. Their opinions aren't actually fully independent even inside their own fields, but based on a lot of derived science that is based on other experts opinions; some of which turn out to be simply suppositions when you track the original sources - just like Thor's hammer.

You trust one expert to fill in the gaps where another lacks, essentially counting on the fact that the aggregate opinion of all experts reflects reality as far as the evidence and available information permits, yet you don't trust the same to happen with people in general.

There isn't really any clear line between "the experts" and "the public", and drawing one will influence the answer you get, which is why it's better to ask everyone than trying to hand-pick opinions.

May 20, 2015
The same applies to the "experts" when it comes to matters outside of their immediate area of expertise.

Sorta. It's not exactly black and white because if you know a bit about physics and chemistry then you can at least form an informed opinion about other areas that are based on the same areas of physics and chemistry you are familiar with. Someone who can do finite element analysis for buildings can form an informed opinion about the validity of such models as applied to climate simulations or biomechanical models. It's never as good as people in the field, but at least they can understand what the people in the field are talking about.

In the end I would agree that others' opinions on climate science (like mine - even though I can read/understand the papers published there) should NOT be taken into account for the political process...only those of climate scientists.

May 20, 2015
You trust one expert to fill in the gaps where another lacks, essentially counting on the fact that the aggregate opinion of all experts reflects reality as far as the evidence and available information permits, yet you don't trust the same to happen with people in general.

No. There is a difference - as I pointed out: If data is available (and complex...or the subject is counter-intuitive like quuantum mehcanics or climate sciences with hidden buffer systems/feedback mechanisms) then trust the experts. An expert is DEFINED as someone who can make sense of the data in his/her field.

If no data is available then even the best expert can draw no conclusions. That's why the public CAN weigh in on stuff that is completely subjective. Climate change is not subjective.

There isn't really any clear line between "the experts" and "the public"

Education and work on the issue. Seems a pretty clear distinction to me.

May 21, 2015
antialias let his true colors known when he said "reality first, morals second" In other words he is willing to kill and resort to force to preserve his "reality". Let's face it. Everyone dies, we have NO IDEA what life even IS, yet he wants to presume we just give away our freedom of will to his ideology in order facilitate the saving of "something" (life) which he has NO IDEA of its' purpose.
By all means why don't you just take over my body while you are at it. Antialias is no different than the eugenic Nazi scientist and "science" worshippers of the day.

May 21, 2015
antialias let his true colors known when he said "reality first, morals second" In other words he is willing to kill and resort to force to preserve his "reality".

No. I'm willing to step over the current morals in order to save humanity. Because, and I know this may take some hard thinking on your part: if there are no humans then the entire concept of "morals" is moot.
Everyone dies, we have NO IDEA what life even IS, yet he wants to presume we just give away our freedom of will to his ideology

Climate change has nothing to do with 'freedom' or an ideology. Ideologies have to do with IDEAS (i.e. stuff that humans just make up). Climate is real. It doesn't care what our ideologies are. It will kill is if we don't take action. It's that simple.

By all means why don't you just take over my body while you are at it.

I have no intention of doing this: But you do demonstrate that you need a nanny to survive in this universe.

May 21, 2015
current morals in order to save humanity.

Sounds more like you are willing to loose your humanity to save some humans.

Eugenics is promoted by 'progressives' and is implemented by 'progressives'.

May 21, 2015
current morals in order to save humanity.

Sounds more like you are willing to loose your humanity to save some humans.

Eugenics is promoted by 'progressives' and is implemented by 'progressives'.


He is a psychopath. Plain and simple.

May 22, 2015
Sounds more like you are willing to loose your humanity to save some humans.

Not some. All. If it's just 'some' then morality applies - as (quite evidently) other humans still exist and therefore the basis for a moral/ethical system is given.

He is a psychopath. Plain and simple.

No. You are the psychopath because YOU would push the button to kill all human just because you'd think its 'moral'.
Don't you realize that your thought process is EXACTLY that of ISIS (et al.)? Totally fanatic in the face of reality? Look in a mirror. You will see a religious fanatic looking back.

May 22, 2015
step over the current morals in order to save humanity.


Morals like individual life, liberty, personal property rights?

Being subject to gravity does not make one an expert on gravity.


Based upon current knowledge most people are experts.

May 22, 2015
Property rights? As in "This is all mine, and you don't get any!"?

Why is it "things" which are important to conservatives and not people? Perhaps when there is nothing inside, some folk look for external meaning.

May 23, 2015
Arguing over whether or not the science is correct should be left to the scientists, not the public.


But AGW scientists attack scientists who don't agree with them.

How can 'correctness' be left to 'scientists'?

Scientists sometimes forget their vocabulary is different and this causes poor communication with the public.


If scientists are so smart, why can't they communicate?

May 23, 2015
current morals in order to save humanity.

Sounds more like you are willing to loose your humanity to save some humans.

Eugenics is promoted by 'progressives' and is implemented by 'progressives'.


He is a psychopath. Plain and simple.
@stevep
no, i think you mean sociopath, and he is correct in his assertions
this is no different than having police, firefighters or a military

The military/police/firefighters act against certain personal decisions (which would technically be immoral considering the "rights" of those wishing to have freedom) in order to save them or a general populace because it is in the best interest as well as for the survival of the species
You don't let an arsonist burn the world just because it is morally correct for him
you don't let criminals or other militaries run your life/overrun your country because it is their personal moral imperative

AA_P has the same perspective, IMHO


May 23, 2015
I have a feeling most of the disagreement is much more civil than the media portrays.


"The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d'être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. "
http://my.telegra...society/

May 23, 2015
They only need to be able communicate sufficiently with their peers


How can they when major journals won't publish them?

May 24, 2015
When you go against the general consensus of the community you need to present some solid evidence to support your claims.


It requires an act of Congress.

A US Senator forced the National Academy of Science to listen to critics of Mann's hokey schtick, and the critics views were sustained.

May 24, 2015
"1. The NAS indicated that the hockey stick method systematically underestimated the uncertainties in the data (p. 107)."
"2. In subtle wording, the NAS agreed with the M&M assertion that the hockey stick had no statistical significance, and was no more informative about the distant past than a table of random numbers. The NAS found that Mann's methods had no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero."
http://hockeyscht...his.html

Read the NAS report for yourself.


May 24, 2015
"In recent discussion of the Weblog 2007 Awards, several commenters at other blogs have argued that our criticisms of the Mannian parlor tricks have been "thoroughly refuted and discarded by climatologists, published in a credible journal"; that "other professionals in the field who also have "looked in great detail at the problem at hand" and have come to the conclusion that rather than McIntyre's findings being "valid and relevant", they instead have found them to be "without statistical and climatological merit"; that CA "fluffed on the whole hockey stick thing"."
"Omitted in these references are the fact that the people described as "climatologists published in a credible journal" or "professionals in the field" are none other than Wahl and Ammann, serial coauthors with Michael Mann, students of Mann, who are not independent of the controversy. "
http://climateaud...newbies/

May 24, 2015
For effect, the Consensus was last seen pedaling bicycles to work. And then to the airport. Where they continue to fly about warning everyone they see about the dangers of burning fossil fuel.

May 25, 2015
Nature which is a highly regarded publication


To AGWites.

The NAS report is free and open to the public. Read it for yourself.

Climateaudit is a most credible source as they get into the details of their analysis.

Unlike the AGWites, Mann and Nature who try to hide their analysis claiming its propriety.

"CRU countered challenges to their views by setting up the PR web site RealClimate and controlling information such as William Connolley's editing of Wikipedia entries. "
" Mann's work was protected from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests due to the "proprietary nature" of the information."
http://wattsupwit...justice/


May 25, 2015
"Nature, on the other hand, only asks for a written description of code with sufficient details to allow interested readers to create their own version. This is currently the common practice for most journals. Typically, when a computer program is written for a paper, the authors will supply an executable version upon request. "
"Without the ability to examine code, independent researchers won't know if potential uncertainties or errors (or even the results) described in a paper can be traced to ambiguity in a description or numerical implementation."
http://arstechnic...itorial/


May 25, 2015
"Your Editorial (Nature 462, 545; 2009) castigates "denialists" for making "endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts". But you do not mention the reason — that the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia has systematically tried to avoid revealing data and code."
"Science relies upon open analysis of data and methods, and the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) has a clear data-sharing policy that expects scientists "to cooperate in validating and publishing [data] in their entirety". The university's leaked e-mails imply a concerted effort to avoid data sharing, which both violates the best practice defined in NERC policy and prevents verification of the results obtained by the unit. Asking for scientific data and code should not lead to anyone being branded as part of the "climate-change denialist fringe".
David R. Bell

School of Biology,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham"

May 25, 2015
"Your News story "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph"'? (Nature 441, 1032; 2006) states that the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel "more-or-less endorses the work behind the [Mann et al hockey stick] graph"'?. This conclusion was not stated in the NAS report itself nor by any of the panellists at the NAS panel press conference releasing the report.

Many specific findings of the NAS panel show that they did not endorse the work behind the hockey stick. The NAS report stated that the Mann et al decentered principal components methodology should not be used; that temperature reconstructions should avoid the use of strip-bark bristlecones and foxtail proxies; that the Mann et al reconstruction was strongly dependent on these problematic proxies; that their reconstruction failed important verification tests; and that they had incorrectly estimated uncertainties in their reconstruction."

http://climateaud...e-again/

May 25, 2015
"The furore surrounding 'Climategate' — rooted in the resistance of climate scientists to accede to requests from members of the public for data underlying some of the claims of climate science — was in part a motivation for the Royal Society's current report. It is vital that science is not seen to hide behind closed laboratory doors, but engages seriously with the public."
"Too often, we scientists seek patterns in data that reflect our preconceived ideas. And when we do publish the data, we too frequently publish only those that support these ideas. This cherry-picking is bad practice and should stop."
Geoffrey Boulton is regius professor of geology emeritus at the University of Edinburgh, UK.

http://www.nature...5#auth-1

May 25, 2015


"Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Dr Phil Jones

Philip Douglas Jones (born April 22, 1952) is the Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia.[1][2]

May 25, 2015
How credible is Science?

"A study purporting to show that people's views on gay marriage could change simply by meeting gay people has been retracted following revelations that its data was fabricated.

The study was published last December in Science, and prior to publication drew a great deal of attention from the American media. Vox, for instance, described the findings in the study as "kind of miraculous." As it turns out, that's exactly what they were, because they were apparently made up."
http://dailycalle...-admits/

http://retraction...e-faked/

May 25, 2015
@Eikka,

I commend your valiant, misguided attempt to construct a Strawman out of the bones of research into crowdsourced information's accuracy.

However, a mere strawman the effort still remains.

I am sure that you are aware that your very own crowdsourced information(even here in America) is overwhelmingly in agreement with the scientific community --that AGW is real, and that it is in urgent need of action to address its worst effects?

All of this "debate" is manufactured, literally, by those interests whose profits would be reduced as a result of the actions necessary to mediate the worst effects of AGW.

Purely and simply the end of the story.

If you don't believe me, you can do a quick search with regard to the PUBLIC's opinion of the validity of climate science's conclusions.

And if you don't look it up, then just

Shut up.



May 25, 2015
Excuse me, I live on this planet douche bag, I think that qualifies me to make MY OWN decision on "climate change". If you don't like it get someone to point a gun at my head and resort to force. You materialists are sickening fools whom would destroy the best qualities of humanity itself just to quell dissension to your ego. YOU don't get to make my decisions. Live your own life and deal with the consequences and quit crying like a baby. In other words, Man up or shut up.

Just don't let your stupidity effect me, my family or friends who are scientists and know for a fact what AGW is. If you think the science is fake, move to India where they are having an AGW heat waves that have killed almost 500 so far from heat stroke and dehydration.

Soylent Green is a popular food dish in the future for deniers.

May 26, 2015
PUBLIC's opinion of the validity of climate science's conclusions.


The public doesn't seem to care. AGW is in the noise.

http://www.gallup...lem.aspx

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more