Tag Archives: Deniers

PLEA Network

14 January 2016, Yale Connections, Experts Fault Reliance on Satellite Data Alone. Over-reliance on satellite data to the exclusion of other data can amount to ‘confirmation bias,’ say scientists urging analysis of numerous different data sets. This month’s “This is Not Cool” video focuses on an ongoing, and again festering, climate science controversy, the value and reliability of satellite-derived global temperatures. And of that data at the exclusion of – or as a surrogate for – other data. Independent videographer Peter Sinclair sought reactions of leading climate scientists to points made in a recent hearing of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, chaired by Texas Republican Senator and presidential nominee hopeful Ted Cruz. “According to the satellite data, there has been no significant global warming for the past 18 years,” the senator said.In the hearing, Senator Cruz emphasized that “The satellite data are the best data we have,” an often-echoed point made by those generally scornful of much of the so-called consensus climate science. Climate scientists Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Andrew Dessler, Carl Mears, and Ben Santer, David Titley, and others voice what they see as limitations or shortcomings of the satellite data. They point to a history of documented errors and mistakes that have often caused satellites to underestimate climate warming.Among these errors are a failure to account for “orbital decay,” changes measuring in the diurnal cycle, and faulty calibration of satellite sensors. Most of all, they discourage over-reliance on any single set of data and instead urge consideration of numerous authoritative data sets. Remote Sensing Systems scientist Carl Mears points to inherent problems in reviewing data only from a particular point in time, especially the often-chosen 1998 starting point, which was characterized by a strong El Niño. “If you start driving at the top of a hill, you’re going to go down, at least at the beginning,” says Mears. Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M says he sees in all this an example of “confirmation bias,” with climate contrarians often looking only at data that “tells them what they want to hear.” Read More here

PLEA Network

4 January 2015, Washington Post, Here’s how scientific misinformation, such as climate doubt, spreads through social media. Social media is no doubt a powerful force when it comes to the sharing of information and ideas; the problem is that not every article shared on Facebook or Twitter is true. Misinformation, conspiracy theories and rumors abound on the Internet, helping to propagate and support sentiments such as climate doubt and other forms of environmental and scientific skepticism. Figuring out how such ideas diffuse through social media may be key to scientists and science communicators alike as they look for ways to better reach the public and change the minds of those who reject their information. A study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences sheds new light on the factors that influence the spread of misinformation online. The researchers conclude that the diffusion of content generally takes place within clusters of users known as “echo chambers” — polarized communities that tend to consume the same types of information. For instance, a person who shares a conspiracy theory online is typically connected to a network of other users who also tend to consume and share the same types of conspiracy theories. This structure tends to keep the same ideas circulating within communities of people who already subscribe to them, a phenomenon that both reinforces the worldview within the community and makes members more resistant to information that doesn’t fit with their beliefs. Read More here

PLEA Network

13 December 2015, Climate News Network, Cold water poured on warming pause. COP21: Scientists say pressure from climate sceptic voices may have led to credibility being given to the mistaken claim that there is evidence of a hiatus in global warming. The so-called, and much debated, hiatus in global warming may never have happened, according to new research  The scientists say there is no substantive evidence for a recent flattening of the curve in the increase in global average temperatures: in other words, no pause, no slowdown in global warming. “We suggest,” they add, “that the use of those terms is therefore inaccurate.” But first, and briefly, the story so far. In the 1990s, planetary temperatures rose steadily, reaching a then all-time high in 1998. In the 21st century, temperatures on average continued to rise, but the rate of increase seemed to be lower. Even so, 13 of the 14 hottest years ever have happened this century, and 2014 was thehottest year ever. Denialists, sceptics and contrarians seized on the apparent slowdown and claimed that global warming had stopped. And teams of climate scientists were drawn, like moths to a flame, again and again to the question of whether there really was a slowdown − and, if so, why. Unexplained data They kept doing so because that is how science works: researchers worry away at unexplained data. They evaluate each other’s hypotheses, try to kick them to death, and then propose an alternative. So, in the course of the last three years, scientists have variously accepted that global warming was never going to proceed at a steady, inexorable rate, that some Atlantic Ocean cycle might be at play to damp atmospheric temperatures, or that the heat might have disappeared into the Pacific depths. They have also proposed that an increase in volcanic activity may have masked solar radiation, and that extremes of temperature were on the increase even if the average appeared not to be rising intemperately. Read More here

PLEA Network

4 November 2015, The Guardian, Most Coalition voters do not believe in human-induced climate change – CSIRO. Five years of surveys show 52% of Liberal voters believe in climate change but don’t think human activity is causing it, and 13% do not believe it is happening. Four out of five Australians believe that climate change is happening, but those who do not are much more likely to vote for the Coalition, new analysis of existing CSIRO data has found. The peak scientific research body analysed data from its past five climate change surveys to give a comprehensive look at how the public’s attitudes have changed over time. The survey was axed this year, so the figures cover the period 2010 to 2014. The research found that 78% of Australians believed that climate change was happening. In 2014, less than two in five – 39% – thought that climate change was happening but was naturally induced. Another 46% nominated humans as the main cause of environmental changes. In 2010, 50% said they believed that climate change was human-induced. Greens and Labor voters were the most likely to believe that climate change was human induced – 76% and 59% respectively. Coalition supporters were much less likely to believe that climate change existed, with 13% of Liberal voters and 18% of Nationals voters saying that they did not think climate change was happening. Most Liberal voters (52%) said they believed that climate change was happening but was naturally-occurring – 28% said they thought it was human-induced. By contrast, 31% of Labor supporters said climate change was naturally-occurring, and 59% said it was human-induced. Read More here