Home / Weather / The newest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

The newest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Local weather And so forth.

Posted on August 14, 2019 by way of curryja

The newest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, printed by way of Nature.

There’s a new paper printed in Nature, entitled Discrepancies in clinical authority and media visibility of weather replace scientists and contrarians.

Summary. We juxtapose 386 outstanding contrarians with 386 skilled scientists by way of monitoring their virtual footprints throughout ∼200,000 analysis publications and ∼100,000 English-language virtual and print media articles on weather replace. Projecting those people throughout the similar backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and clinical authority, and figuring out group patterns inside of their affiliation networks. Right here we display by means of direct comparability that contrarians are featured in 49% extra media articles than scientists. But when evaluating visibility in mainstream media resources most effective, we practice only a 1% extra visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out mainstream resources by way of the proliferation of latest media resources, lots of which give a contribution to the manufacturing and intake of weather replace disinformation at scale. Those effects display why weather scientists must more and more exert their authority in clinical and public discourse, and why skilled newshounds and editors must regulate the disproportionate consideration given to contrarians.

.

This ranks because the worst paper I’ve ever observed printed in a credible magazine.  The most important methodological issues and doubtful assumptions:

.

  • Class error to kind into contrarians and weather scientists, with contrarians together with scientists, newshounds and politicians.
  • With the exception of the class error, the 2 teams are incorrectly specified, with some weather scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.
  • Cherry selecting the quotation knowledge of best 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, amongst others (p 12 of Supplemental Knowledge)
  • Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist crew DeSmog as a valid foundation for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’
  • Assumption that clinical experience at the reasons of weather replace relates without delay to the collection of clinical citations.
  • Assumption that it could be really useful for the general public debate on weather replace  for the ‘unheard’ however extremely cited weather scientists to go into into the media fray.
  • Assumption that scientists have particular authority in coverage debates on weather replace

The actual travesty is that this press liberate issued by way of UC Merced:

.

“It’s time to forestall giving those other people visibility, which can also be simply spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen mentioned. “By means of monitoring the virtual lines of particular people in huge troves of publicly to be had media knowledge, we advanced the right way to dangle other people and media shops in control of their roles within the climate-change-denialism motion, which has given upward thrust to weather replace incorrect information at scale.”

.

And so forth.

.

Here’s the record of ‘contrarians’ known within the paper [hyperlink]

.

I’m incorporated prominently at the record, possibly coming up from the DeSmog hit piece on me.

From the clicking liberate: “Lots of the contrarians aren’t scientists, and those who’re have very skinny credentials. They don’t seem to be in the similar league with best scientists. They aren’t even within the league of the typical profession weather scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.”  One of the outstanding, recently energetic weather scientists at the record whose paintings I’ve discovered from:

  • Roy Spencer
  • Richard Lindzen
  • John Christy
  • Roger Pielke Jr
  • Roger Pielke Sr
  • Richard Tol
  • Ross McKitrick
  • Nir Shaviv
  • Garth Paltridge
  • Nicola Scafetta
  • Craig Loehle
  • Scott Denning
  • Nils Axel Morner
  • William Cotton
  • Vincent Courtillot
  • Hendrik Tennekes

Observe that this record of weather science ‘contrarians’ is closely populated by way of mavens in weather dynamics, i.e. how the weather gadget in fact works.

Probably the most comical categorization in this record is arguably Scott Denning, who strongly helps the IPCC Consensus, and gave a chat to this impact at an early Heartland Convention.  Sarcastically, Scott Denning tweeted this text, it appears ahead of he discovered he was once at the record of contrarians.

The record additionally comprises others (educational or now not) with experience on at a minimum of one facet of weather science (widely outlined), from whom I’ve discovered one thing from both their publications or weblog posts or different public displays:

  • Sebastian Luning
  • Michael Kelly
  • Bjorn Lomborg
  • Christopher Essex
  • Alex Epstein
  • Fritz Vahrenholt
  • Scott Armstrong
  • Willie Quickly
  • Steve McIntyre
  • Anthony Watts
  • Patrick Michaels
  • Edward Wegman
  • Matt Ridley
  • Patrick Moore
  • David Legates
  • Craig Idso
  • Chip Knappenberger
  • William Happer
  • Henrik Svensmark
  • Steven Goddard
  • Madhav Kandekhar
  • Jennifer Marohasy
  • William Briggs
  • Hal Doiron
  • Freeman Dyson
  • Iver Giaver
  • JoAnn Nova

I’d now not search to shield the whole thing that every of those people  has written or spoken at the subject of weather replace, however they have got added to our wisdom base and supply attention-grabbing views.  Why shouldn’t they get media protection if one thing that they write about is of normal passion and stands as much as scrutiny?

The ‘actual’ scientists on their record with heaviest media affect come with:

  • Donald Wuebbles
  • Ramanathan
  • Stephen Schneider
  • Thomas Stocker
  • Noah Diffenbaugh
  • Miles Allen
  • Kerry Emanuel
  • Phil Jones
  • Chris Jones
  • Stefan Rahmstorf
  • Andrew Weaver
  • Kevin Trenberth
  • Michael Mann

Does any individual suppose those scientists don’t get sufficient exposure within the MSM?

Katherine Hayhoe (with HUGE MSM presence) doesn’t make this record; is any individual interested in her oversized Kardashian Index?

Evaluating elephants and peanuts

Probably the most ridiculous factor that this text does is examine the media hits of contrarians which can be politicians or newshounds with that of ‘consensus scientists’.  Within the record of contrarians, the next are politicians and newshounds that I regard as being usually knowledgable of weather science:

  • Marc Morano
  • Rex Tillerson
  • David Rose
  • Mark Steyn
  • Matt Ridley
  • Nigel Lawson
  • Christopher Booker
  • Ronald Bailey
  • Andrew Montford
  • Rupert Darwall

Shall we face it, those people are somewhat small potatoes in the case of weather replace primary circulation media. Examine the media affect of the above record with

  • Al Gore
  • Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez
  • Greta Thunberg
  • And so forth.

The lack of understanding of weather replace of AOC and Greta is fairly surprising.   Why isn’t any individual interested in this?

JC reflections

With the exception of the rank stupidity of this text and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does considerable hurt to weather science.

Local weather science is an excessively large and diffuse science, encompassing many subfields.  Every of those subfields is related to considerable uncertainties, and while you combine these kind of fields and try to mission into the long run, there are huge uncertainties and unknowns. There are a spectrum of views, particularly on the wisdom frontiers.  Seeking to silence or delegitimize any of those voices could be very unhealthy for science.

Scientists who’re efficient within the public verbal exchange of weather replace can talk about subjects past their very own private experience.  This calls for a distinct set of talents from elementary analysis: skill to synthesize and assess a large frame of analysis and be in contact successfully.  Scientists at the ‘contrarian’ record carry one thing additional to the desk: reality checking alarming statements; considerations about analysis integrity; pondering outdoor the field and pushing the information frontier of weather science past AGW – problems which can be vital to the MSM and public verbal exchange of weather science.

The hurt that this paper does to weather science is an try to de-legitimize weather scientists (each educational and non educational), with the ancillary results of constructing it tougher to get their papers printed in journals (keep tuned for my newest engagement with the magazine peer evaluation procedure, coming later this month) and the censorship of Nir Shaviv by way of Forbes (optimistically coming later this week).

Reposted from Dr. Judith Curry’s Local weather And so forth.

Posted on August 14, 2019 by way of curryja

The newest travesty in consensus ‘enforcement’, printed by way of Nature.

There’s a new paper printed in Nature, entitled Discrepancies in clinical authority and media visibility of weather replace scientists and contrarians.

Summary. We juxtapose 386 outstanding contrarians with 386 skilled scientists by way of monitoring their virtual footprints throughout ∼200,000 analysis publications and ∼100,000 English-language virtual and print media articles on weather replace. Projecting those people throughout the similar backdrop facilitates quantifying disparities in media visibility and clinical authority, and figuring out group patterns inside of their affiliation networks. Right here we display by means of direct comparability that contrarians are featured in 49% extra media articles than scientists. But when evaluating visibility in mainstream media resources most effective, we practice only a 1% extra visibility, which objectively demonstrates the crowding out mainstream resources by way of the proliferation of latest media resources, lots of which give a contribution to the manufacturing and intake of weather replace disinformation at scale. Those effects display why weather scientists must more and more exert their authority in clinical and public discourse, and why skilled newshounds and editors must regulate the disproportionate consideration given to contrarians.

.

This ranks because the worst paper I’ve ever observed printed in a credible magazine.  The most important methodological issues and doubtful assumptions:

.

  • Class error to kind into contrarians and weather scientists, with contrarians together with scientists, newshounds and politicians.
  • With the exception of the class error, the 2 teams are incorrectly specified, with some weather scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.
  • Cherry selecting the quotation knowledge of best 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, amongst others (p 12 of Supplemental Knowledge)
  • Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist crew DeSmog as a valid foundation for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’
  • Assumption that clinical experience at the reasons of weather replace relates without delay to the collection of clinical citations.
  • Assumption that it could be really useful for the general public debate on weather replace  for the ‘unheard’ however extremely cited weather scientists to go into into the media fray.
  • Assumption that scientists have particular authority in coverage debates on weather replace

The actual travesty is that this press liberate issued by way of UC Merced:

.

“It’s time to forestall giving those other people visibility, which can also be simply spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen mentioned. “By means of monitoring the virtual lines of particular people in huge troves of publicly to be had media knowledge, we advanced the right way to dangle other people and media shops in control of their roles within the climate-change-denialism motion, which has given upward thrust to weather replace incorrect information at scale.”

.

And so forth.

.

Here’s the record of ‘contrarians’ known within the paper [hyperlink]

.

I’m incorporated prominently at the record, possibly coming up from the DeSmog hit piece on me.

From the clicking liberate: “Lots of the contrarians aren’t scientists, and those who’re have very skinny credentials. They don’t seem to be in the similar league with best scientists. They aren’t even within the league of the typical profession weather scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.”  One of the outstanding, recently energetic weather scientists at the record whose paintings I’ve discovered from:

  • Roy Spencer
  • Richard Lindzen
  • John Christy
  • Roger Pielke Jr
  • Roger Pielke Sr
  • Richard Tol
  • Ross McKitrick
  • Nir Shaviv
  • Garth Paltridge
  • Nicola Scafetta
  • Craig Loehle
  • Scott Denning
  • Nils Axel Morner
  • William Cotton
  • Vincent Courtillot
  • Hendrik Tennekes

Observe that this record of weather science ‘contrarians’ is closely populated by way of mavens in weather dynamics, i.e. how the weather gadget in fact works.

Probably the most comical categorization in this record is arguably Scott Denning, who strongly helps the IPCC Consensus, and gave a chat to this impact at an early Heartland Convention.  Sarcastically, Scott Denning tweeted this text, it appears ahead of he discovered he was once at the record of contrarians.

The record additionally comprises others (educational or now not) with experience on at a minimum of one facet of weather science (widely outlined), from whom I’ve discovered one thing from both their publications or weblog posts or different public displays:

  • Sebastian Luning
  • Michael Kelly
  • Bjorn Lomborg
  • Christopher Essex
  • Alex Epstein
  • Fritz Vahrenholt
  • Scott Armstrong
  • Willie Quickly
  • Steve McIntyre
  • Anthony Watts
  • Patrick Michaels
  • Edward Wegman
  • Matt Ridley
  • Patrick Moore
  • David Legates
  • Craig Idso
  • Chip Knappenberger
  • William Happer
  • Henrik Svensmark
  • Steven Goddard
  • Madhav Kandekhar
  • Jennifer Marohasy
  • William Briggs
  • Hal Doiron
  • Freeman Dyson
  • Iver Giaver
  • JoAnn Nova

I’d now not search to shield the whole thing that every of those people  has written or spoken at the subject of weather replace, however they have got added to our wisdom base and supply attention-grabbing views.  Why shouldn’t they get media protection if one thing that they write about is of normal passion and stands as much as scrutiny?

The ‘actual’ scientists on their record with heaviest media affect come with:

  • Donald Wuebbles
  • Ramanathan
  • Stephen Schneider
  • Thomas Stocker
  • Noah Diffenbaugh
  • Miles Allen
  • Kerry Emanuel
  • Phil Jones
  • Chris Jones
  • Stefan Rahmstorf
  • Andrew Weaver
  • Kevin Trenberth
  • Michael Mann

Does any individual suppose those scientists don’t get sufficient exposure within the MSM?

Katherine Hayhoe (with HUGE MSM presence) doesn’t make this record; is any individual interested in her oversized Kardashian Index?

Evaluating elephants and peanuts

Probably the most ridiculous factor that this text does is examine the media hits of contrarians which can be politicians or newshounds with that of ‘consensus scientists’.  Within the record of contrarians, the next are politicians and newshounds that I regard as being usually knowledgable of weather science:

  • Marc Morano
  • Rex Tillerson
  • David Rose
  • Mark Steyn
  • Matt Ridley
  • Nigel Lawson
  • Christopher Booker
  • Ronald Bailey
  • Andrew Montford
  • Rupert Darwall

Shall we face it, those people are somewhat small potatoes in the case of weather replace primary circulation media. Examine the media affect of the above record with

  • Al Gore
  • Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez
  • Greta Thunberg
  • And so forth.

The lack of understanding of weather replace of AOC and Greta is fairly surprising.   Why isn’t any individual interested in this?

JC reflections

With the exception of the rank stupidity of this text and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does considerable hurt to weather science.

Local weather science is an excessively large and diffuse science, encompassing many subfields.  Every of those subfields is related to considerable uncertainties, and while you combine these kind of fields and try to mission into the long run, there are huge uncertainties and unknowns. There are a spectrum of views, particularly on the wisdom frontiers.  Seeking to silence or delegitimize any of those voices could be very unhealthy for science.

Scientists who’re efficient within the public verbal exchange of weather replace can talk about subjects past their very own private experience.  This calls for a distinct set of talents from elementary analysis: skill to synthesize and assess a large frame of analysis and be in contact successfully.  Scientists at the ‘contrarian’ record carry one thing additional to the desk: reality checking alarming statements; considerations about analysis integrity; pondering outdoor the field and pushing the information frontier of weather science past AGW – problems which can be vital to the MSM and public verbal exchange of weather science.

The hurt that this paper does to weather science is an try to de-legitimize weather scientists (each educational and non educational), with the ancillary results of constructing it tougher to get their papers printed in journals (keep tuned for my newest engagement with the magazine peer evaluation procedure, coming later this month) and the censorship of Nir Shaviv by way of Forbes (optimistically coming later this week).

About admin

Check Also

Why 100% Renewable Energy Is Less Realistic Than a Unicorn

Why 100% Renewable Power Is Much less Reasonable Than a Unicorn

Visitor “you’ll be able to’t get there from right here” by way of David Middleton …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *