DOCSLIB.ORG

By Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and Countering Misinformation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
By Communicating the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and Countering Misinformation Closing the “consensus gap” by communicating the scientific consensus on climate change and countering misinformation John Cook Bachelor of Science (Honours in Physics) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The University of Western Australia School of Psychology 2016 CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP Abstract There is a consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing global warming. However, the general public think there is significant scientific disagreement about human-caused global warming. This misconception, and in particular the difference between expert and public opinion—the “consensus gap”—has societal consequences, as perceived consensus is a gateway belief influencing a range of climate attitudes including policy support. One contributor to the consensus gap is misinformation, which is designed to manufacture doubt about the level of scientific agreement on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This multi-paper thesis explores the psychology of consensus, testing experimentally the effect of consensus information and conversely, the influence of misinformation designed to cast doubt on the consensus. I found that overall, consensus information is effective in increasing acceptance of AGW. However, among a small proportion of the public with strong conservative beliefs, the provision of consensus information can be counterproductive; this could contribute to the persistence of the rejection of climate science. I also found that an effective approach to neutralising the influence of misinformation is inoculation against misinformation techniques. As well as conduct research into the psychology of consensus, this thesis documents my efforts to summarise and communicate the body of research into misinformation and consensus, encouraging more evidence-based science communication. Lastly, I outline the potential for practical application of my research in the form of agnotology-based learning, which teaches scientific concepts through the refutation of misconceptions. Several methods of applying agnotology-based learning include Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and developing educational resources structured to facilitate this teaching approach. ii CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP Acknowledgements I would like to thank a number of people who have made completion (indeed survival) of this doctorate possible. Some of the papers I have co-authored over the course of this doctorate have attracted an intense amount of attention, which has resulted in a number of attacks on my research. The support and assistance of a number of people through this tumultuous period has been valuable and deeply appreciated. First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisors Stephan Lewandowsky and Ullrich Ecker. Throughout this doctorate, Stephan was always available for feedback, advice and guidance. Stephan and Ulli, in collaboration with the research lab at the University of Western Australia, are the hub of much of the current-edge research into misinformation. It was an honour to build on the research being conducted there. It has also been a pleasure collaborating with my co-supervisor Ullrich Ecker. His advice, death threats, and friendship throughout the course of my PhD have been deeply appreciated, despite his research efforts to undermine most of the backfire effects listed in the Debunking Handbook. I must also thank Mark Hurlstone for his generous feedback and Charles Hanich for his assistance with Qualtrics and navigating the UWA systems. My doctorate would never have happened were it not for the suggestion of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, who initially encouraged me to commence a PhD. His energetic and unwavering support, and my fellowship appointment at The University of Queensland, has enabled my research to have an impact far beyond my expectations. Throughout this journey and prior to this doctorate, I have been honoured to work with the passionate and talented volunteer team at Skeptical Science. The impact that this team, a collection of volunteers working in their spare time, sharing a passion for climate iii CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP communication, is extraordinary – our research has been cited by Presidents, Prime Ministers, mainstream media and throughout the scientific community. I must specially mention my co-authors Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah Green, Mark Richardson, Baerbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce. More broadly, the Skeptical Science community has been a strong and constant source of support, knowledge and wisdom over the years. I was delighted to discover a kindred spirit in Daniel Bedford whose pioneering work in raising climate literacy through agnotology-based learning has inspired me to follow suit. Scott Mandia also joined us in these efforts, as well as the co-authoring of a paper on agnotology-based learning. Both Daniel and Scott are excellent college professors, as indicated by their ratings on the Rate My Professor website. Mid-way through this doctorate, I undertook the development of a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). On the plus side, this project was essentially an application of the research I had conducted for my PhD (on the negative side, it delayed the completion of this doctorate by about a year). The project was an immense undertaking and would not have been possible without the dedicated work and support from MOOC coordinator Tanya Dodgen and MOOC designer Carrie Finn. I also must express my appreciation of the talented folk at UQx – Matt Peterson, Shannon O’Brien and Daniel Greenup. Lastly, I would like to thank my wife Wendy, who has shown great patience, support and love despite (or because of) the demands and tolls of my research. iv CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... iii Papers Included in this Thesis ................................................................................ vi Statement of Candidate Contribution to Included Papers ................................... viii 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1 2 The scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming ............................... 8 3 Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks ............ 26 4 Psychological research into countering misinformation ................................... 49 5 Neutralising misinformation through inoculation ............................................ 141 6 Raising climate literacy through agnotology-based learning .......................... 223 7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 237 References ........................................................................................................... 240 Curriculum Vitae ................................................................................................. 252 v CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP Papers Included in this Thesis Paper 1: Published (Chapter 2) Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Way, R., Jacobs, P., & Skuce, A. (2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2), 024024+. Paper 2: Published (Chapter 2) Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B., Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J.S., Lewandowsky, S., Green, S. A., Skuce, A. G., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 048002. Paper 3: Published (Chapter 3) Cook, J. & Lewandowsky, S. (2016). Rational irrationality: Modeling climate change belief polarization using Bayesian networks. Topics in Cognitive Science. 8(1), 160-179. Paper 4: Published (Chapter 4) Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13, 106-131. vi CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP Paper 5: Published (Chapter 4) Cook, J., Ecker, U. & Lewandowsky, S. (2015). Misinformation and how to correct it, Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn (Eds.), Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Paper 6: Published (Chapter 4) Cook, J. (in press). Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. In M. Nisbett (Ed.), Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication. London: Oxford University Press. Paper 7: Published (Chapter 5) Cook, J., Lewandowsky, S., & Ecker, U. K. H. (2016, submitted). Neutralising misinformation through inoculation: Exposing misleading argumentation techniques reduces their influence. Paper 8: Published (Chapter 5) Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lloyd, E. A. (2016, submitted). The `Alice in Wonderland' Mechanics of the Rejection of (Climate) Science: Simulating Coherence by Conspiracism. Paper 9: Published (Chapter 6) Cook, J., Bedford, D. & Mandia, S. (2014). Raising climate literacy through addressing misinformation: Case studies in agnotology-based learning. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 296-306. vii CLOSING THE CONSENSUS GAP Statement of Candidate Contribution
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uva-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
    UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository) ‘Global warming is not a crisis!’ Studying climate change skepticism on the Web Niederer, S. DOI 10.5117/NECSUS2013.1.NIED Publication date 2013 Document Version Final published version Published in NECSUS License CC BY-NC-ND Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Niederer, S. (2013). ‘Global warming is not a crisis!’: Studying climate change skepticism on the Web. NECSUS, 2(1), 83-112. https://doi.org/10.5117/NECSUS2013.1.NIED General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl) Download date:28 Sep 2021 EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDIA STUDIES www.necsus-ejms.org NECSUS Published by: Amsterdam University Press ‘Global warming is not a crisis!’ Studying climate change skepticism on the Web Sabine Niederer NECSUS 2 (1):83–112 DOI: 10.5117/NECSUS2013.1.NIED Keywords: climate change, global warming, Web Introducing the skeptics, or ‘Global warming is not a crisis!’ This article makes a contribution to the study of the climate controversy by using Web data to research the status of skepticism within the climate debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy, Hearing
    CLIMATE CHANGE: EXAMINING THE PROCESSES USED TO CREATE SCIENCE AND POLICY HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2011 Serial No. 112–09 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 65–306PDF WASHINGTON : 2011 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas Wisconsin JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California ZOE LOFGREN, California ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland DAVID WU, Oregon FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD MILLER, North Carolina JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois W. TODD AKIN, Missouri GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia BEN R. LUJA´ N, New Mexico SANDY ADAMS, Florida PAUL D. TONKO, New York BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona JERRY MCNERNEY, California CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland Tennessee TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan MO BROOKS, Alabama ANDY HARRIS, Maryland RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana DAN BENISHEK, Michigan VACANCY (II) C O N T E N T S Thursday, March 31, 2011 Page Witness List ............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The 97% Consensus on Global Warming
    This is the print version of the Skeptical Science article 'There is no consensus', which can be found at http://sks.to/consensus. The 97% consensus on global warming What The Science Says: 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. Climate Myth: There is no consensus The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project) Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy. But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments
    Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments September 2010 Whitepaper available online: http://www.dbcca.com/research Carbon Counter widget available for download at: www.Know-The-Number.com Research Team Authors Mary-Elena Carr, Ph.D. Kate Brash Associate Director Assistant Director Columbia Climate Center, Earth Institute Columbia Climate Center, Earth Institute Columbia University Columbia University Robert F. Anderson, Ph.D. Ewing-Lamont Research Professor Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Columbia University DB Climate Change Advisors – Climate Change Investment Research Mark Fulton Bruce M. Kahn, Ph.D. Managing Director Director Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research Senior Investment Analyst Nils Mellquist Emily Soong Vice President Associate Senior Research Analyst Jake Baker Lucy Cotter Associate Research Analyst 2 Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments Editorial Mark Fulton Global Head of Climate Change Investment Research Addressing the Climate Change Skeptics The purpose of this paper is to examine the many claims and counter-claims being made in the public debate about climate change science. For most of this year, the volume of this debate has turned way up as the ‘skeptics’ launched a determined assault on the climate findings accepted by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. Unfortunately, the increased noise has only made it harder for people to untangle the arguments and form their own opinions. This is problematic because the way the public’s views are shaped is critical to future political action on climate change. For investors in particular, the implications are huge. While there are many arguments in favor of clean energy, water and sustainable agriculture – for instance, energy security, economic growth, and job opportunities – we at DB Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA) have always said that the science is one essential foundation of the whole climate change investment thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change
    The Oceans and Climate Change by Al Trujillo Source of most figures: Essentials of Oceanography 11th Edition Trujillo and Thurman © 2014 Pearson Education Al Trujillo’s Home Page: http://www2.palomar.edu/users/atrujillo The Climate Change Game: One Game for Each Group • Identify the statements in the envelope as either “True” or “False” by discussing them with your group • Place each statement in the appropriate circle • We’ll answer these statements and more today About This Presentation • Questions encouraged • Only 10 graphs • A few things to keep track of: . What are the answers to the Climate Change Game Cards? . Selected graphs: What are the graphs telling you? Marine Ecologist and NOAA Chief Administrator Jane Lubchenco (2009) “Human-induced climate change is a reality, not only in remote polar regions and in small tropical islands, but everyplace around the country, in our own backyards. It’s happening. It’s happening now. It’s not just a problem for the future. We are beginning to see its impacts in our daily lives… More than that, humans are responsible for the changes that we are seeing, and our actions now will determine the extent of future change and the severity of the impacts.” Global Warming vs. Climate Change Global Warming • Warming of Earth’s surface temperatures • Recent warming implied to be human-caused Climate Change • A significant and lasting change in global long-term average weather conditions • Includes global warming • Broader changes in long-term average weather (hotter, colder, dryer, wetter) • Changes in extreme weather events Accepting the Science: Facts About Climate Change • Humans are adding vast amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere • These human-caused emissions are causing Earth’s climate to change • Recent climate changes are NOT driven by any natural cycle • Scientists have well-documented evidence that rapid climate changes are occurring now Is There Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Ref: Doran and Zimmerman (2009) Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Eos Trans.
    [Show full text]
  • February 15, 2020) Brought to You by SEPP ( the Science and Environmental Policy Project
    The Week That Was: 2020-02-15 (February 15, 2020) Brought to You by SEPP (www.SEPP.org) The Science and Environmental Policy Project Quote of the Week: “"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure." — Thomas Jefferson (1823) Number of the Week: January 1736 THIS WEEK: By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Future Emissions Down, Climate Sensitivity Up? Writing in American Thinker, Anthony Watts draws attention to a surprising article in one of the climate establishment’s journals, Nature. In that article by Zeke Hausfather and Glen Peters, the authors point out that great increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are unlikely to take place in the 21st century. Thus, the world will not warm as much as claimed using the standard modeling assumptions common to the global climate models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The authors propose that the IPCC modelers moderate their extreme emissions scenario, their storyline. The unlikely possibility of the extreme increase in CO2 emissions has been addressed by many sceptics, such as Judith Curry and Roy Spencer, and in the Reports of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Further, the comprehensive physical evidence of warming of the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect occurs, does not show a dangerous warming as CO2 is increasing. The scenarios used are secondary to the main issue, the sensitivity of temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere to increasing CO2.
    [Show full text]
  • Skeptical Science the Thermometer Needle and The
    11/9/2015 The thermometer needle and the damage done Look up a Term CLAM Bake Climate Science Glossary Term Lookup Enter a term in the search box to find its definition. Settings Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off). Term Lookup Term: Define Settings Beginner Intermediate Advanced No Definitions Definition Life: 20 seconds All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941­954. Cambridge University Press. Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate Search... The thermometer needle and the damage done Posted on 6 November 2015 by Andy Skuce Rising temperatures may inflict much more damage on already warm countries than conventional economic models predict. In the latter part of the twenty­first Century, global warming might even reduce or reverse any earlier economic progress made by poor nations. This would increase global wealth inequality over the century. (This is a repost from Critical Angle.) A recent paper published in Nature by Marshall Burke, Solomon M. Hsiang and Edward Miguel Global non­linear effect of temperature on economic production argues that increasing Climate's changed before temperatures will cause much greater damage It's the sun to economies than previously predicted. Furthermore, this effect will be distributed very It's not bad unequally, with tropical countries getting hit very There is no consensus hard and some northern countries actually benefitting.
    [Show full text]
  • Countering Skepticism, Denial, and Despair
    CHAPTER 7 Countering Skepticism, Denial, and Despair he alarming prospect of not only a hotter world, higher sea levels, more intense T storm events, and flooding, but also increased disease, fresh water and food shortages, supply chain disruptions, and other national and global security stresses may, understandably, trigger a variety of reactions, from denial and despair to fear and sadness. For some, there’s an understandable tendency to look the other way and focus on more immediate concerns. One natural response to being confronted with climate change bad news is to doubt the science or question the scientists. Can it really be as bad as all of that? Are the scientists mistaken? Could they be missing something? Such skepticism is natural and important. Educators often struggle to encourage healthy skepticism and critical thinking among their learners, so when introducing climate and energy topics, finding out what naïve ideas, misconceptions, or doubts they have is an important starting point. Knowing that skepticism is the lifeblood of science, John Cook, an Australian scientist long interested in climate change, started his website Skeptical Science in 2007 as a response to comments by U.S. politicians that climate change was a hoax. Over the years, Cook (2014) and his team have assembled a collection of over 170 arguments against the hoax charge. Their site (http://www.skepticalscience.com) is used by educa- tors and even scientists not familiar with all the current research and is especially help- ful in being able to counter common statements that arise in discussing climate and energy issues. Taking a layered approach by first presenting the myth, then providing a basic as well as more intermediate understanding of the current science countering the myth, the Skeptical Science team analyzed the merit of the arguments in detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Climate Part 2: CLIMATE SCIENCE in AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS
    October 2013 Sceptical Climate Part 2: CLIMATE SCIENCE IN AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS Professor Wendy Bacon Australian Centre for Independent Journalism Sceptical Climate Part 2: Climate Science in Australian Newspapers ISBN: 978-0-9870682-4-8 Release date: 30th October 2013 REPORT AUTHOR & DIRECTOR OF PROJECT: Professor Wendy Bacon (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney) PROJECT MANAGER & RESEARCH SUPERVISOR: Arunn Jegan (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism) PROJECT & RESEARCH ADVISOR: Professor Chris Nash (Monash University) DESIGN AND WEB DEVELOPMENT Collagraph (http://collagraph.com.au) RESEARCHERS: Nicole Gooch, Katherine Cuttriss, Matthew Johnson, Rachel Sibley, Katerina Lebedev, Joel Rosenveig Holland, Federica Gasparini, Sophia Adams, Marcus Synott, Julia Wylie, Simon Phan & Emma Bacon ACIJ DIRECTOR: Associate Professor Tom Morton (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, University of Technology, Sydney) ACIJ MANAGER: Jan McClelland (Australian Centre for Independent Journalism) THE AUSTRALIAN CENTRE FOR INDEPENDENT JOURNALISM The Sceptical Climate Report is a project by The Australian Centre for Independent Journalism, a critical voice on media politics, media policy, and the practice and theory of journalism. Follow ACIJ investigations, news and events at Investigate.org.au. This report is available for your use under a creative commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) license, unless specifically noted. Feel free to quote, republish, backup, and move it to whatever platform works for you. Cover graphic: Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change, 1880 - 2012. Source: NASA GISS 2 Table of Contents 1. Preface . 5 2. Key Findings. 10 3. Background Issues . 28 4. Findings 4.1 Research design and methodology. 41 4.2 Quantity of climate science coverage .
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Counting Climate Consensus
    This is a repository copy of Beyond Counting Climate Consensus. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/119269/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Pearce, W. orcid.org/0000-0001-6884-3854, Grundmann, R., Hulme, M. et al. (3 more authors) (2017) Beyond Counting Climate Consensus. Environmental Communication: a journal of nature and culture. ISSN 1556-7400 https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1333965 Reuse Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record for the item. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ 1 2 ABSTRACT: 3 Several studies have been using quantified consensus within climate science as an argument to 4 foster climate policy. Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high 5 public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful. We argue that repeated efforts to 6 shore up the scientific consensus on minimalist claims such as ‘humans cause global warming’ are 7 distractions from more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public 8 engagement.
    [Show full text]
  • Does It Matter If the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Is 97% Or 99.99%? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society
    Does it matter if the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is 97% or 99.99%? This is a copy of the revised manuscript accepted for publication in the Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. The content may differ in minor ways from the final, published version. Skuce, A.G., Cook, J., Richardson, M.; Winkler, B. Rice, K., Green, S. A., Jacobs, P. and Nuccitelli, D. (in press, 2017) Does it matter if the consensus on anthropogenic global warming is 97% or 99.99%? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. Authors Andrew G. Skuce* Salt Spring Consulting, Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada. Skeptical Science John Cook Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University, USA. Skeptical Science Mark Richardson Pasadena, California, USA. Skeptical Science Bärbel Winkler, Fellbach, Germany. Skeptical Science Ken Rice SUPA, Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, UK. Sarah A. Green Department of Chemistry, Michigan Technological University, USA. Peter Jacobs Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, USA. Dana Nuccitelli West Sacramento, California, USA. Skeptical Science *Corresponding author: Andrew G. Skuce, Salt Spring Consulting, 116 Cormorant Crescent, Salt Spring Island, BC, V8K 1G8, Canada. [email protected] AGW Consensus: 97% or 99.99%? Skuce et al. (2017) 1 Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding The authors received no direct financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Acknowledgements We thank James Powell for providing us with the opportunity to elaborate on consensus methodologies.
    [Show full text]
  • Merchants-Of-Doubt-Assignments.Pdf
    Discussion Guide: https://urbauerlab.uga.edu/fyo/pdfs/merchants-of-doubt-discussion-guide.pdf Background reading: -Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement -New York Times review of “Merchants of Doubt” https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/movies/review-merchants-of-doubt- separating-science-from-spin.html? -Think Progress interview with Robert Kenner https://thinkprogress.org/professional-deceivers-people-who-can-convince-you-a- garbage-man-knows-more-science-than-a-nasa-phd-33a6fece3825/ 2017 Report on Climate Change: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/government-document-directly-contradicts- trump-on-climate-change-report-says.html https://insideclimatenews.org/news/09082017/climate-change-science-report- leaked-truth https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/document-Draft-of- the-Climate-Science-Special-Report.html? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming- trump.html? https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the- Climate-Science-Special-Report.pdf A bit (a few sentences) of background, how this person/entity fit into the movie, and then how this person/entity contributed to (or battled against) a “war on science” Explain how/why each of the following people/entities constitute or contribute in some way to a “war on science” 1. The Oregon Petition () https://www.desmogblog.com/oregon-petition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/
    [Show full text]