 |
| Image taken from http://pixdaus.com/single.php?id=250193 |
In the study, Dr. Anderegg, et al. ranked the climate scientists by number of publications, then divided these scientists into two groups, those who are convinced by the evidence of ACC (CE) and those who are unconvinced by the evidence of ACC (UE). The CE group was determined by combining the list of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contributors and signatories of 4 prominent scientific statements endorsing the IPCC. The UE researchers were signatories of statements that strongly dissents from the views of IPCC.
Dr. Anderegg, et al. found that 49 out of 50 (98%) top climate scientists belonged to the CE group. The number remains consistent for the top 100 (97 belonged to CE group, or 97%) and top 200 (195 belonged to CE group, or 97.5%). When comparing the CE group against the UE group, the differential credentials of the researchers belonging to each group is obvious. While 90% of the CE group has over 20 climate publications, only 20% of the UE group has over 20 climate publications. On average, a CE climate scientist has published 119 papers, as opposed to an average of 60 papers published by UE climate scientists.
Dr. Anderegg himself stated that “scientific confidence is earned by the winnowing process of peer review and replication of studies over time. In the meanwhile, given…the state of debate over perception of climate change, we must seek estimates while confidence builds. Based on the arguments presented here, we believe our findings capture the differential climate science credentials of the two groups.” So what? With an overwhelming majority of top climate scientists agreeing with ACC, there is little doubt that we are the cause of the ongoing climate changes and the catastrophes they bring to life on Earth. We also know that whenever a climate denier quotes a scientist, then the scientist is most likely not an authority on the subject matter.
Some people are still confused about whether there is a consensus within the scientific community, therefore, it would be helpful to have more public announcements, founded by NGO's, to inform the public that the consensus is that our day-to-day activities are indeed the cause of much of the climate changes we experience today, and we must push for more actions to be done. Getting people to sign petitions for tougher actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other causes of climate change can also help inform the general public through fliers and helpful volunteers. However, this does not mean that all climate scientists who disagree with ACC in its entirety should be ignored outright. If they can back their opinions up with evidence, then they should not be denied the chance to present their findings to the community.
Citations:
Anderegg WRL, Prall JW, Harold J, Schneider SH. Expert credibility in climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:12107–12109.
Will Zhu is a student at Rollins School of Public Health. He hopes to visit all 58 National Parks someday.
Interesting aspect of the climate debate. I was left wondering what CE and UE stood for and I felt there was a little too much raw data that could have been simplified to be more friendly. Other than that, the ending was a nice read, and I liked how that part extended to the reader's life.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic! Although there are a lot of nested acronyms, you presented the concept well. Our contribution to climate change is clearly not undeniable, since people do refute it. However, there is more evidence to state that there are human causes for global climate change. But, I'd also be interested to see if this analysis controlled for date of publication. After all, our science has gotten better, and perhaps more recent studies have more rigorous validation.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article. I'm glad to see that someone did this. You provide a nice summary of the article. I like the idea of including date of publication. I wonder if the authors did that. I think you could have included a more about the evidence with which scientists agreed or disagreed. Maybe include more about the IPCC. What does their statement say? What does it mean to be a contributor or signatory?
ReplyDeleteInteresting study! I like what you wrote about, but I think a more "lay-person accessible" way to present it would be to focus on the fact that people wonder about the debate within the scientific community. It reads more like a summary of the article, rather than framing it in a way that is how most people think about things.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I found the use of all the acronyms a little confusing and had to keep going back to see what they meant. Can you think of an easier way to talk about the different groups of scientists that's quick and easy to remember?
A lot of times we are tempted to use academic language because it is easier than thinking of something else, but lay people often struggle to remember the terms and concepts.
I know -- you and I have had the conversation before about not being sure what lay people know and don't know because you grew up around doctors. : ) But -- I think your greatest challenge over the next several years will be finding ways to explain things with more commonly understood words to those who aren't as familiar with what you know.
All that said, I thought this was very interesting and informative!
I think your topic is quite interesting---and you present a good summary of information here, although I think your writing is a little too heavy on the technical language and data. For example, writing "...200 (195 belonged to CE group, or 97.5%)" , although I know you are presenting data clearly, reads as just too many numbers. This is something I understand all too well---I am prone to using overly technical language as well.
ReplyDeleteIt might have helped to frame this information for a lay person, even something as simple as introducing the idea that beyond all the issues with climate change as a concept, and how it is studied, that there are debates and divisions within the ranks of climate change scientists/experts themselves.
Your post provided a very clear summary of the article, and it was very interesting to see the direct correlation between number of publications and belief in ACC.
ReplyDeleteI think it would have been interesting to hear more about how the disagreement within the scientific community affects the public, and a longer discussion of ways to increase the public's awareness of how activities of daily living affect the climate. For instance, I am not convinced that it is the responsibility of NGOs to provide public announcements, or that this would be particularly effective. What about the role of government, or the media?
Very interesting topic and relevant to our everyday lives. I liked the picture choice for gripping attention. I think relating it to our everyday activities could be a neat way to engage readers as well (something like: do the light bulbs you use really matter? It reached record-high temperatures in December, should we be worried?). Another way to bring it back to the lay reader would be to suggest things people could do to reduce their own impact.
ReplyDeleteI thought the article was summarized well. It made me want to know more about the data backing up each side since this is a topic that gets talked about relatively often (and not always with data/facts). Nice job.