Home » Posts tagged 'Skeptic' (Page 3)
Tag Archives: Skeptic
Peer review
This resource contains 2 lessons
Enter a caption
Image courtesy of the UC San Diego Library
(1) Scrutinizing science: Peer review. UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley.
(2) In search of quality: The scientific peer review process. EUFIC – The European Food Information Council. A non-profit organisation for science-based information on food and health.
______________________________________________
Scrutinizing Science: Peer Review
Peer review does the same thing for science that the “inspected by #7” sticker does for your t-shirt: provides assurance that someone who knows what they’re doing has double-checked it. In science, peer review typically works something like this:
-
A group of scientists completes a study and writes it up in the form of an article. They submit it to a journal for publication.
-
The journal’s editors send the article to several other scientists who work in the same field (i.e., the “peers” of peer review).
-
Those reviewers provide feedback on the article and tell the editor whether or not they think the study is of high enough quality to be published.
-
The authors may then revise their article and resubmit it for consideration.
-
Only articles that meet good scientific standards (e.g., acknowledge and build upon other work in the field, rely on logical reasoning and well-designed studies, back up claims with evidence, etc.) are accepted for publication.
Peer review and publication are time-consuming, frequently involving more than a year between submission and publication. The process is also highly competitive. For example, the highly-regarded journal Science accepts less than 8% of the articles it receives, and The New England Journal of Medicine publishes just 6% of its submissions.
Peer-reviewed articles provide a trusted form of scientific communication. Even if you are unfamiliar with the topic or the scientists who authored a particular study, you can trust peer-reviewed work to meet certain standards of scientific quality.
Since scientific knowledge is cumulative and builds on itself, this trust is particularly important. No scientist would want to base their own work on someone else’s unreliable study!
Peer-reviewed work isn’t necessarily correct or conclusive, but it does meet the standards of science. And that means that once a piece of scientific research passes through peer review and is published, science must deal with it somehow — perhaps by incorporating it into the established body of scientific knowledge, building on it further, figuring out why it is wrong, or trying to replicate its results.
– Scrutinizing science: Peer review. UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley.
______________
In search of quality: The scientific peer review process
Before a scientific assertion is made public it should be scrutinised for its credibility. Has the scientist drawn justifiable conclusions, based on the data available from sound scientific research?
The peer review process is a form of scientific quality control, where scientists open their research to the scrutiny of other experts in the field (peers).1
By reviewing and criticising each others’ work, scientists aim to ensure that only original and sound research is published and recognised.
How does it work?
When research is submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, the journal invites several (usually two or more) independent experts to assess the credibility of the research.1
These experts consider the scientific methods, results and conclusions presented by the authors, asking themselves, if the science is technically sound, if the interpretation is consistent with the data, and if it is new, important or ground-breaking.2
Reviewers usually remain anonymous, are not paid for their assessment, and should not have any conflicts of interest in relation to the research. If a paper does not meet the requirements, based on the peer reviews, the editor can either reject it or deem it acceptable subject to adequate changes, allowing authors to react and revise their paper.
Why is it important?
The peer review process checks that a paper explains clearly how the research was carried out, so that it can be reproduced by others. It also verifies that the methodology is appropriate for the specific field and set of objectives.
Another crucial part of the review process is assessing the originality of new research and the accurate referencing of related published research, particularly if these contrast with the research at hand. The review is also useful for those whose work is being scrutinised; it allows them to fine-tune their manuscript before public release.2
A manuscript is seldom accepted for publication without at least a minor revision.
The review process essentially strives to separate fact from speculation and personal opinion.2
Peer-reviewed research is never beyond criticism however, and any conclusions drawn must be considered in the context of other studies. Ideally, experiments should be repeated to assess whether results can be reproduced; this is how findings are truly substantiated. The real validation, therefore, comes after publication.
Non-peer-reviewed research
Unfortunately, research results often find their way into the public domain without being peer reviewed, and are spread via newspapers, magazines, the internet, television and radio. They may be unpublished findings presented at press conferences, or published findings from a journal that does not use peer review.
Even journals that do use peer review contain some non-peer-reviewed content, such as editorials and letters to the editor. Both scientists and journalists should understand the meaning and importance of peer review and clarify whether or not research they discuss has been peer-reviewed. There are potentially enormous costs to both science and society from the promotion of scientifically weak or flawed research findings.
An imperfect process
The peer review process does not protect against misconduct. It can identify mistakes, but relies on honesty and, as a result, can fail to recognise deliberately fraudulent research. Various organisations have produced integrity guidelines on good research practice aiming to reduce such occurrences.3
On the other side, financial or personal concerns may bias a reviewer’s professional judgement and objectivity. It is vital to consider in advance any factors, which could lead to bias.3
According to the European Science Foundation, preventing and managing such conflicts of interest is crucial in ensuring equity and integrity.3
Sometimes concerns are raised about the influence of the funding body on the design of the study, or the interpretation or reporting of the research outcomes. The peer review process gives credence to research, because the paper has been independently checked and critically evaluated, including the correct scientific interpretation of the results on the basis of other existing evidence – no matter who funded the research.2
Inevitably, there are variations in standards between journals. A journal’s “Impact Factor” reflects how often its papers are cited in other peer-reviewed journals, and gives some indication of importance of the journal in its field – the higher the number, the greater the impact or influence.
The process and culture of checking each other’s work is ongoing in the scientific world. Once a paper has been published, further criticism can be made by the scientific community via letters to the journal editor, discussions at conferences, or direct exchange with the research team behind the study in question. Authors can justify their findings and flaws uncovered can be corrected or retracted.1,2
This is the nature of science; all work is open to critique by other scientists.
References
- Science Media Centre (2012). Peer review in a nutshell: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Peer-Review-in-a-Nutshell.pdf
- Sense About Science (2004). Peer Review and the acceptance of new scientific ideas. London: Sense About Science. http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/17/peerReview.pdf
- European Science Foundation (2011). European peer review guide integrating policies and practices into coherent procedures. Strasbourg: European Science Foundation. http://www.vr.se/download/18.2ab49299132224ae10680001647/European+Peer+Review+Guide.pdf
Related ideas
Welcome to the Journal of Alternative Facts 🙂
Critical thinking assignment
Being a science writer is harder than being a sports writer because sports writers don’t have to deal with people who think that basketball doesn’t even exist.
The nature of science. Students will work in a pair to research and answer one of the following questions:
a) Is the Earth flat (2D) or spherical? (3D)
what arguments did people make for the Earth being flat? what evidence did they bring forth? what arguments did people make for the Earth being spherical? and what evidence did they bring forth? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 2 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
http://www.popsci.com/10-ways-you-can-prove-earth-is-round
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/gravity/prove-that-the-earth-is-a-sphere/
b) Is the Earth thousands of years old, or billions of years old?
points to address: what arguments did people make for the Earth being thousands of years old? what evidence did they present? what arguments did people make for the Earth being billions of years old? what evidence did they present? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 2 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
Half life of atoms: Using radioactive decay like a clock
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/radioactive-dating-game
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
c) Is the Earth the center of our solar system, or is the Sun?
points to address: what is a star? what is a planet? what arguments did people make for the Earth being the center of our solar system? what evidence did they present? what arguments did people make for the our Sun being the center of our solar system – and what evidence did they present? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 3 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/earth-science/astronomy/early-views-of-the-solar-system/
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/earth-science/astronomy/solar-system-the-modern-view/
d) Are all elements stable, forever, or do some atoms change into other others?
points to address: what is an “element”? How do elements differ from each other? Where do elements originally come from? How specifically did we discover that some elements change: what evidence did they have? Evidence is just a set of facts – we can’t draw conclusions unless we make logical connections between them. Explain their reasoning (how people reached their conclusion.)
First you need to be sure that you know what atoms and elements are! (These introductory websites don’t count as sources for your paper)
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/elem_intro.html
What is an Atom -Basics for Kids
Bill Nye The Science Guy – S05E08 – Atoms
Nuclear chemistry (KaiserScience)
You will need to look up additional resources in our school library, the city library, or on the internet. Here are 2 sources to help you get started. Within these sources you can find other sources to cite.
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/physics/modern-physics/nuclear-physics-and-radioactivity/
Half life of atoms: Using radioactive decay like a clock
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/radioactive-dating-game
—————————————-
Writing your paper
It will be: typed, spell-checked, grammar-checked, doubled spaced, 12 point font, 1″ margins. No cover page. The upper left of the 1st page will include the name of you and your partner, my name, your block, and a title. The paper will be 5 pages long.
Part I – on science in general
1. Explain the difference between a claim that is, and isn’t, peer-reviewed
Peer review: 2 articles, with infographics
Scrutinizing science: Peer review
In search of quality: The scientific peer review process
2. Explain the difference between Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice
https://kaiserscience.wordpress.com/biology-the-living-environment/evolution/
3. Science answer questions about things that are “natural” – what does this mean? Science also has limits: What are topics that science doesn’t answer a question about?
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/natural
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
Part II – on your chosen topic.
4. Obtain 5 science-based sources on your topic. Cite the sources using MLA standards.
5. Summarize what science has learned on your topic.
6. Don’t just list measurements or facts. Explain how the data leads to the conclusion. Look at the grading rubric to see what is expected. Paper will be handed in on time by 1/23/17. Worth 100 points. Lose 5 points/day for late papers, including weekends and holidays. Grading rubric
Learning Standards
2016 Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Standards
Students will be able to:
Climate ‘Skeptics’ are not like Galileo
The following article is from https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm. Skeptical Science was created and maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
___________________________
Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.
“I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell” – Texas Governor Rick Perry
The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true.
1. Galileo was suppressed by religious/political authority, not scientists. Galileo was not suppressed or “outvoted” by other early scientists. Many scientific contemporaries agreed with his observations[2], and were appalled by his trial.[3]
Galileo was persecuted by the religious-political establishment – the Catholic Church, which in 1616 ordered him to stop defending his view of the solar system, which contradicted church dogma. After Galileo published his famous Dialogue, the Roman Inquisition tried him in 1633 for defying Church authority, and found him guilty of suspected religious heresy, forced him to recant, banned his books and sentenced him to house arrest for life.[4] Galileo died eight years later.[5]
2. Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based. The key difference between Galileo and the Church concerned Galileo’s “way of knowing,” or epistemology. How is knowledge attained?
Medieval scholarship and Catholic Church dogma relied on the authority of Aristotle and a literal interpretation of the Bible to place earth at the center of the universe.
In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.
The vast majority of vocal skeptics are not engaged in climate research. The common bond uniting them, observers note, is an ideological belief system: Government regulation is bad, so problems that may require regulation must be resisted.[6] From there, they search for ways to cast doubt on the science.[7] Unlike Galileo and modern scientists, they do not change their view when presented with new evidence, because their position derives not from open-ended scientific inquiry, but from strongly-held ideological convictions.
In contrast, climate science applies the scientific method pioneered by Galileo. Scientists make observations, form logical hypotheses, then test their hypotheses through experiments and further observations. They follow the evidence wherever it leads.
The Church’s attack on Galileo and the skeptical assault on climate science are far from unique. History is full of examples where new scientific findings threatened powerful vested interests – whether religious, financial or ideological — and provoked a furious backlash.
3. The discovery of global warming overturned an age-old belief; the skeptics seek to restore it. In arguing that the planets revolve around the sun, Galileo was challenging an idea that had dominated Western thought for over 1400 years. Ever since Ptolemy (90-168 AD) codified Aristotle’s “geocentrism,” most philosopher/scientists had accepted the common sense view that the earth is the center of the universe, with the sun and planets revolving around us.
Similarly, the prevailing view throughout history was that people, through our own actions, could not possibly alter earth’s climate on a global scale. Even into the 20th century, the overwhelming majority of scientists maintained, in science historian Spencer Weart’s words,
the widespread conviction that the atmosphere was a stable, automatically self-regulated system. The notion that humanity could permanently change global climate was implausible on the face of it, hardly worth a scientist’s attention.[8]
Some say climate science’s first “Galileo moment” came in 1896, when Swedish scientists Svante Arrhenius, after years of laborious hand calculations, predicted eventual global warming due to CO2 emissions.[9] Others point to 1938, when a British steam engineer named Guy Stewart Callendar, after poring over old CO2 and temperature records, stood alone before the Royal Meteorological Society to argue that global warming was already happening.[10]
Arrhenius and Callendar were ahead of their time, and failed to persuade others. In both cases, the scientific establishment found their calculations oversimplified and their evidence incomplete, certainly not convincing enough to overturn the ancient view that global climate was impervious to human acts.
Mainstream scientific opinion was slow to change. During the post-war science boom in the 1950’s, early computers and advanced methods allowed scientists to directly investigate objections to Arrhenius’ and Callendar’s view.[11]
Using the new digital computers, Gilbert Plass found that more CO2 could indeed block more heat.[12]
Hans Suess analyzed radioactive isotopes to detect ancient carbon in the air, presumably from fossil fuels.[13]
Roger Revelle and Suess discovered that the oceans could not quickly take up additional CO2.
David Keeling built the first sensor capable of accurately measuring atmospheric CO2 – just as Galileo had invented a more advanced telescope – and found that the CO2 level was indeed rising.
From 1960 to 1990, the evidence kept accumulating, from areas of study as far afield as geology, astronomy and biology. As the gaps in knowledge were filled, one-by-one, most scientists changed their views and gradually formed a new consensus: significant anthropogenic (human caused) global warming was likely.[14]
By 2000, the evidence was overwhelming.
The hypothesis proposed by Arrhenius in 1896—denied by almost every expert through the first half of the twentieth century and steadily advancing through the second half—was now as well accepted as any scientific proposal of its nature could ever be.[15]
The climate pioneers were vindicated.
Critics of climate science, backed by the alarmed fossil fuel industry,[16] sprang into action in the late 1980s, when the mounting evidence led to calls for international action to limitCO2 emissions. They did not argue, like Galileo, for a revolutionary hypothesis based on new evidence, because they could not agree on one among themselves.[17] They produced little new evidence. Instead, they searched for flaws in others’ research, and launched a public relations campaign to sow public doubt.
Unlike Galileo, climate skeptics were not trying to overturn an ancient view. Their goal was the opposite: to restore the age-old conventional wisdom, that, by itself, “human activity was too feeble to sway natural systems”[18]. In clinging to this old view, the skeptics’ stance more closely resembles that of the Catholic Church, which fought Galileo’s views for another 100 years after the scientific establishment had embraced him.
4. Climate scientists, not skeptics, are being dragged into court Armed with ideological certainty, backed by powerful financial and political interests, skeptics have sought to not only discredit the science but impugn the researchers’ honesty. Unfounded accusations of deception and conspiracy fly freely,[19] and some climate scientists even receive death threats.[20] These attacks, according Dr. Naomi Oreskes, “have had a chilling effect… Intimidation works.”[21]
In April 2011, personal attacks on scientists took a more ominous turn, when Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a fierce climate skeptic, launched a criminal fraud investigation of a prominent climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann.[22] Multiple investigations by independent scientific bodies have found no trace of wrongdoing in Mann’s work, and a Virginia judge dismissed Attorney General’s subpoena request for lack of evidence. Yet, as of September 2011, Cuccinellis’ crusade continues.[23]
If Galileo were alive today, watching climate scientists being dragged into court on baseless charges, is there any doubt whose side he would take?
*************
[1] On Sept 7, 2011, at the Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley, Texas Gov.. Rick Perry, became the highest level politician to invoke the Galileo comparison.
Well, I do agree that there is — the science is — is not settled on this. The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at — at — at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet, to me, is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean — and I tell somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said here is the fact, Galileo got outvoted for a spell.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/08/us/politics/08republican-debate-text.html?pagewanted=all
The founders of Australia’s “Galileo Movement” claim that global warming is a “fabrication,” and
cite as inspiration Galileo Galilei, the 17th century astronomer and father of modern science, who challenged the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church to report the Earth orbited around the sun. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=galileo-movement-fuels-australia-climate-change-divide
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/science/earth/09galileo.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=galileo&st=cse
[3] personal communication, Spencer Weart, 9-17-2011.
[4] Wooton, David. Galileo: Watcher of the Skies, Yale University Press, New Haven (2010), p. 224-5.
[5] Galileo died on January 8, 1642 at age 77.
[6] http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/the-never-ending-story/?hp
[7] See Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway. Merchants of Doubt, Bloomsbury Press, New York (2010)
[9] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
[10] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
[12] Dr. Spencer Weart’s excellent history of this period can be found in overview at http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm, with more details athttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm, the linked timeline and other articles.
[13] Weart, Spencer. The Discovery of Global Warming, Harvard University Press, New York (2004), p. 26
[14] Weart, p. 164.
[15] Weart, p. 191.
[16] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=all
[17] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/science/earth/04climate.html
[18] http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
[19] Oreskes and Conway, page 4, 198-213. 264.
[20] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/climate-scientists-angered-by-deniers-death-threat-campaign/story-e6frg6nf-1226079058193
[21] Oreskes and Conway, p. 264-5.
[22] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/30/AR2010083005004.html?sid=ST2010050303477
[23]http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/07/the_university_of_virginia_hol.html
Also see the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund: http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/donation/
Articles
Global warming and greenhouse gases
Global warming has not stopped
Global warming: Pause in the rate of temp rise
Global warming Industry knew of climate change
Global warming: Adjusted data sets are a normal part of science
Climate skeptics are not like Galileo.
Yes, the climate has always changed. But this shows why that’s no comfort: XKCD infographic
Tesla and wireless power transmission
Nikola Tesla is one of the great scientists of the 20th century. He patented close to 300 inventions in electrical and mechanical engineering.
Many of Nikola Tesla’s inventions actually work. However, there are many urban legends surrounding his work, some of which have become the basis of conspiracy theories. Perhaps the most widely known is related to Tesla’s discovery that electrical power can be transmitted wirelessly, through the air, from one device to another.
Tesla demonstrated that some power from a Tesla coil could effectively be used to power light bulbs tens or hundreds of feet away. He then envisioned extending the power and range of these devices: he wanted to build a remote power station which could wirelessly power entire cities and towns. However, Tesla never actually worked through the math to prove that this would be efficient or possible, nor did he even demonstrate this level of usefulness.
There is a belief that Tesla “proved” that these towers could wirelessly power cities, and that either the government, or power companies, conspired to keep the details of how this works secret. Electrical engineers and physicists, however, hold that not only is there no conspiracy, but that basic laws of physics show that Tesla’s proposal was unworkable in practice. Below you will find details on why it does not work for large geographical areas.
The information below has been excerpted & adapted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power (1/29/16)
Also see “The Cult of Nikola Tesla”
Inventor Nikola Tesla performed the first experiments in wireless power transmission at the turn of the 20th century. He has done more to popularize the idea than any other individual. From 1891 to 1904 he experimented with transmitting power by inductive and capacitive coupling, using spark-excited radio frequency resonant transformers, now called Tesla coils, which generated high AC voltages. With these he was able to transmit power for short distances without wires.
He found he could increase the distance by using a receiving LC circuit tuned to resonance with the transmitter’s LC circuit, using resonant inductive coupling.
At his Colorado Springs laboratory during 1899–1900, by using voltages of the order of 10 mega-volts generated by an enormous coil, he was able to light three incandescent lamps at a distance of about one hundred feet.
The resonant inductive coupling which Tesla pioneered is now a familiar technology used throughout electronics and is currently being widely applied to short-range wireless power systems.
The inductive and capacitive coupling used in Tesla’s experiments is a “near-field” effect, so it is not able to transmit power long distances. However, Tesla was obsessed with developing a wireless power distribution system that could transmit power directly into homes and factories, as proposed in his visionary 1900 article in Century magazine.
He claimed to be able to transmit power on a worldwide scale, using a method that involved conduction through the Earth and atmosphere. Tesla believed that the entire Earth could act as an electrical resonator, and that by driving current pulses into the Earth at its resonant frequency from a grounded Tesla coil working against an elevated capacitance, the potential of the Earth could be made to oscillate, and this alternating current could be received with a similar capacitive antenna tuned to resonance with it at any point on Earth.
Another of his ideas was to use balloons to suspend transmitting and receiving electrodes in the air above 30,000 feet (9,100 m) in altitude, where the pressure is lower. At this altitude, Tesla claimed, an ionized layer would allow electricity to be sent at high voltages (millions of volts) over long distances.
In 1901, Tesla began construction of a large high-voltage wireless power station, now called the Wardenclyffe Tower, at Shoreham, New York. Although he promoted it to investors as a transatlantic radiotelegraphy station, he also intended it to transmit electric power as a prototype transmitter for a “World Wireless System” that was to broadcast both information and power worldwide.
By 1904 his investors had pulled out, and the facility was never completed. Although Tesla claimed his ideas were proven, he had a history of failing to confirm his ideas by experiment, and there seems to be no evidence that he ever transmitted significant power beyond the short-range demonstrations above.
The only report of long-distance transmission by Tesla is a claim – not found in reliable sources – that in 1899 he wirelessly lit 200 light bulbs at a distance of 26 miles (42 km). There is no independent confirmation of this putative demonstration; Tesla did not mention it, and it does not appear in his meticulous laboratory notes. It originated in 1944 from Tesla’s first biographer, John J. O’Neill, who said he pieced it together from “fragmentary material… in a number of publications”.
In the 110 years since Tesla’s experiments, efforts using similar equipment have failed to achieve long distance power transmission, and the scientific consensus is his World Wireless system would not have worked. Tesla’s world power transmission scheme remains today what it was in Tesla’s time, a fascinating dream.
Tesla’s Big Mistake. Amasci.com – William Beaty
The real science of non-Hertzian waves, By Paul Nicholson
Wireless Energy Transfer, By Yue Ma
Advanced materials
Wireless Power Transmission: From Far-Field to Near-Field
Trying to replicate climate contrarian papers
Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers:
A new paper finds common errors among the 3% of climate papers that reject the global warming consensus
Dana Nuccitelli, Aug 25, 2015, The Guardian
Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warmingoften invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.
To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?
This new study was authored by Rasmus Benestad, myself (Dana Nuccitelli), Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook. Benestad (who did the lion’s share of the work for this paper) created a tool using the R programming language to replicate the results and methods used in a number of frequently-referenced research papers that reject the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. In using this tool, we discovered some common themes among the contrarian research papers.
Cherry picking was the most common characteristic they shared. We found that many contrarian research papers omitted important contextual information or ignored key data that did not fit the research conclusions. For example, in the discussion of a 2011 paper by Humlum et al. in our supplementary material, we note,
The core of the analysis carried out by [Humlum et al.] involved wavelet-based curve-fitting, with a vague idea that the moon and solar cycles somehow can affect the Earth’s climate. The most severe problem with the paper, however, was that it had discarded a large fraction of data for the Holocene which did not fit their claims.
When we tried to reproduce their model of the lunar and solar influence on the climate, we found that the model only simulated their temperature data reasonably accurately for the 4,000-year period they considered. However, for the 6,000 years’ worth of earlier data they threw out, their model couldn’t reproduce the temperature changes. The authors argued that their model could be used to forecast future climate changes, but there’s no reason to trust a model forecast if it can’t accurately reproduce the past.
We found that the ‘curve fitting’ approach also used in the Humlum paper is another common theme in contrarian climate research. ‘Curve fitting’ describes taking several different variables, usually with regular cycles, and stretching them out until the combination fits a given curve (in this case, temperature data). It’s a practice I discuss in my book, about which mathematician John von Neumann once said,
With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.
Good modeling will constrain the possible values of the parameters being used so that they reflect known physics, but bad ‘curve fitting’ doesn’t limit itself to physical realities. For example, we discuss research by Nicola Scafetta and Craig Loehle, who often publish papers trying to blame global warming on the orbital cycles of Jupiter and Saturn.
This particular argument also displays a clear lack of plausible physics, which was another common theme we identified among contrarian climate research. In another example, Ferenc Miskolczi argued in 2007 and 2010 papers that the greenhouse effect has become saturated, but as I also discussin my book, the ‘saturated greenhouse effect’ myth was debunked in the early 20th century. As we note in the supplementary material to our paper, Miskolczi left out some important known physics in order to revive this century-old myth.
This represents just a small sampling of the contrarian studies and flawed methodologies that we identified in our paper; we examined 38 papers in all. As we note, the same replication approach could be applied to papers that are consistent with the expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and undoubtedly some methodological errors would be uncovered. However, these types of flaws were the norm, not the exception, among the contrarian papers that we examined. As lead author Rasmus Benestad wrote,
we specifically chose a targeted selection to find out why they got different answers, and the easiest way to do so was to select the most visible contrarian papers … Our hypothesis was that the chosen contrarian paper was valid, and our approach was to try to falsify this hypothesis by repeating the work with a critical eye.
If we could find flaws or weaknesses, then we would be able to explain why the results were different from the mainstream. Otherwise, the differences would be a result of genuine uncertainty.
After all this, the conclusions were surprisingly unsurprising in my mind. The replication revealed a wide range of types of errors, shortcomings, and flaws involving both statistics and physics.
You may have noticed another characteristic of contrarian climate research – there is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming. Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other. The one thing they seem to have in common is methodological flaws like cherry picking, curve fitting, ignoring inconvenient data, and disregarding known physics.
If any of the contrarians were a modern-day Galileo, he would present a theory that’s supported by the scientific evidence and that’s not based on methodological errors. Such a sound theory would convince scientific experts, and a consensus would begin to form. Instead, as our paper shows, the contrarians have presented a variety of contradictory alternatives based on methodological flaws, which therefore have failed to convince scientific experts.
Human-caused global warming is the only exception. It’s based on overwhelming, consistent scientific evidence and has therefore convinced over 97% of scientific experts that it’s correct.
____________________
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism. By John Cook, Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland
A major challenge in conversing with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics is that they constantly seem to move the goalposts and change their arguments. As a consequence, they also frequently contradict themselves. One day they’ll argue the current global warming is caused by the Sun, the next that it’s “natural cycles”, the next that the planet is actually cooling, and the next day they’ll say the surface temperature record is unreliable, so we don’t even know what the global temperature is. This is why Skeptical Science has such an extensive skeptic argument list.
It should be obvious that the arguments listed above all contradict each other, yet they’re often made by the same skeptics. As one prominent example, in 2003 physicist and skeptic Fred Singer was arguing that the planet wasn’t warming, yet in 2007 he published a book arguing that the planet is warming due to a 1,500-year natural cycle. You can’t have it both ways!
It’s a testament to the robustness of the AGW theory that skeptics can’t seem to decide what their objection to it is. If there were a flaw in the theory, then every skeptic would pounce on it and make a consistent argument, rather than the current philosophy which seems to be “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.” It would behoove AGW skeptics to decide exactly what their objection to the scientific theory is, because then it would be easier to engage in a serious discussion. . .
The contradictory nature of global warming skepticism
Table of global warming skeptic contradictions (click the link below for the full article)
_______
Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth, and was later vindicated. However, most scientists hold that this view is flawed; and in fact the opposite is true. Climate skeptics are not like Galileo.
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years: A newly unearthed missive from Lenny Bernstein, a climate expert with the oil firm for 30 years, shows concerns over high presence of carbon dioxide in enormous gas field in south-east Asia factored into decision not to tap it.
ExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.
“Exxon first got interested in climate change in 1981 because it was seeking to develop the Natuna gas field off Indonesia,” Lenny Bernstein, a 30-year industry veteran and Exxon’s former in-house climate expert, wrote in the email. “This is an immense reserve of natural gas, but it is 70% CO2,” or carbon dioxide, the main driver of climate change.
However, Exxon’s public position was marked by continued refusal to acknowledge the dangers of climate change, even in response to appeals from the Rockefellers, its founding family, and its continued financial support for climate denial. Over the years, Exxon spent more than $30m on thinktanks and researchers that promoted climate denial, according to Greenpeace.
Exxon said on Wednesday that it now acknowledges the risk of climate change and does not fund climate change denial groups.
Some climate campaigners have likened the industry to the conduct of the tobacco industry which for decades resisted the evidence that smoking causes cancer….
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more years
KaiserScience 
