Scientists who claim human contribution to climate change is insignificant have far less professional background in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers.
Stanford scientists looked at the educational background, research background, and the number of times work was cited in scientific literature to make a quantitative assessment.
"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.
At least 20 papers on climate research written by each scientist was the standard used. Climate researchers who are certain about of human-caused conditions related to climate change had approximately twice as many publications as the unconvinced, observed one of the participants in the research, Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.
Prominence in science was determined by how many times a particular paper or research had been cited by other researchers. Those who believe climate change is in part human-induced were found to have 64 percent more papers than those unconvinced.
The research examined those scientists involved in producing the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group. This is the group of scientists that examined evidence concerning climate change and human involvement. The research examined as well those climate researchers who signed a major statement against the findings of the panel.
The Stanford team found those who were found among the top climate researchers were those who agreed with the findings. Those found at the bottom were more likely to disagree.
"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.
Several other published studies support Stanford's research findings.
"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 those who disagree with their findings and believe there was some sort of conspiracy or intent to deceive by manipulating findings. They claim, however, they took particular pains not to do this and only picked those with at least some credentials in climate.
"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."
For those who argue scientists had just disregarded scientists who disagreed with the mainstream research, the team says otherwise and declares there has to be evidence to demonstrate prejudice.
"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."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Say something constructive. Negative remarks and name-calling are not allowed.