DOCSLIB.ORG

'Pause' in Global Warming in Historical Context : (II). Comparing Models to Observations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'Pause' in Global Warming in Historical Context : (II). Comparing Models to Observations This is a repository copy of The 'pause' in global warming in historical context : (II). Comparing models to observations. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/142118/ Version: Published Version Article: Lewandowsky, Stephan, Cowtan, Kevin orcid.org/0000-0002-0189-1437, Risbey, James S. et al. (4 more authors) (2018) The 'pause' in global warming in historical context : (II). Comparing models to observations. Environmental Research Letters. 123007. ISSN 1748- 9326 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ 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/ Environmental Research Letters TOPICAL REVIEW • OPEN ACCESS Recent citations The ‘pause’ in global warming in historical context: - Influence and seepage: An evidence- resistant minority can affect public opinion (II). Comparing models to observations and scientific belief formation Stephan Lewandowsky et al To cite this article: Stephan Lewandowsky et al 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 123007 - A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and retrospective on the evidence James S Risbey et al View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 144.32.224.27 on 04/02/2019 at 16:51 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 123007 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372 TOPICAL REVIEW The ‘pause’ in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing OPEN ACCESS models to observations RECEIVED 6 February 2017 Stephan Lewandowsky1,2,3 , Kevin Cowtan4, James S Risbey3 , Michael E Mann5, Byron A Steinman6, REVISED Naomi Oreskes7 and Stefan Rahmstorf8,9 11 November 2018 1 University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 2 23 November 2018 University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia 3 CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia PUBLISHED 4 Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, United Kingdom 19 December 2018 5 Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, State College, United States of America 6 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, United States Original content from this of America work may be used under 7 Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States of America the terms of the Creative 8 Commons Attribution 3.0 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, D-14473, Germany licence. 9 University of Potsdam, Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Potsdam, Germany Any further distribution of E-mail: [email protected] this work must maintain attribution to the Keywords: climate models, climate projections, ‘pause’ in global warming author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI. Abstract We review the evidence for a putative early 21st-century divergence between global mean surface temperature (GMST) and Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) projections. We provide a systematic comparison between temperatures and projections using historical versions of GMST products and historical versions of model projections that existed at the times when claims about a divergence were made. The comparisons are conducted with a variety of statistical techniques that correct for problems in previous work, including using continuous trends and a Monte Carlo approach to simulate internal variability. The results show that there is no robust statistical evidence for a divergence between models and observations. The impression of a divergence early in the 21st century was caused by various biases in model interpretation and in the observations, and was unsupported by robust statistics. 1. Introduction models over-estimated warming (Fyfe et al 2013). The question of whether GMST deviates from model pro- A presumed slowdown in global warming during the jections has often been conflated with, but is con- first decade of the 21st century, and an alleged ceptually distinct from, questions relating to the divergence between projections from climate models observed warming rate. For example, one might ask and observations, have attracted considerable research whether warming has ceased or ‘paused’ or entered a attention. Even though the Earth’s climate has long ‘hiatus’. Answers to this question involve tests of the been known to fluctuate on a range of temporal scales statistical hypothesis that the warming trend is equal (Climate Research Committee, National Research to zero. A different question might be whether warm- Council 1995), the most recent fluctuation has been ing has slowed significantly, in which case the statis- singled out as a seemingly unique phenomenon, being tical question is whether there is a change in the long- identified as ‘the pause’ or ‘the hiatus.’ By the end of term rate of warming. A third question, at issue in this 2017, the ‘pause’ had been the subject of more than article, is whether the observations diverge from 200 peer-reviewed articles (Risbey et al 2018). model-derived expectations. Here, we focus on one aspect of the putative Existing research on the ‘pause’ has often conflated ‘pause’; namely, an alleged divergence between model the distinct questions that can be asked about short- projections and observed global mean surface temper- term warming trends. This conflation can be proble- ature (GMST); in particular the claim that climate matic because it is possible, in principle, for the © 2018 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 123007 S Lewandowsky et al Figure 1. Historically conditioned trends for major GMST datasets; Berkeley (Cowtan and Way 2014); the U.K. Met Office’s HadCRUT (Brohan et al 2006, Morice et al 2012); NASA’s GISTEMP (Hansen et al 2010); Cowtan and Way’s improved version of HadCRUT (Cowtan and Way 2014); and NOAA’s dataset (Vose et al 2012). Each solid line plots the best-fitting least squares trend from the start year of 1998 to the end year (vantage year) as shown on the x-axis. The thick lines for each dataset correspond to the version available and current at a given vantage year, with the vertical gray lines indicating major changes in version. The thin lines provide retrospective trends that show what the trends would have been if later versions of the data (represented by solid points) had been available earlier. The solid points indicate the dates of versions of each dataset that were available for analysis. The trends are incremented from monthly data which results in some fine scale variation. observations to diverge from model-derived expecta- retrospective (‘hindsight’) trends calculated back to tions even though warming continues unabated. earlier vantage points as if the later versions of the Under those circumstances it would be misleading to dataset had been available then. discuss a ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’, notwithstanding any The figure shows that different versions of the divergence between projected and observed trends. same dataset can yield substantially different trend A further difficulty in interpreting research on the estimates, as indicated by the difference between each ‘pause’ is that this period of intense research activity solid line and its thinner retrospective counterparts. coincided with notable improvements to observa- This is particularly pronounced for HadCRUT, which tional datasets. Specifically, GMST datasets are evol- shows a distinct jump in 2012 when HadCRUT3 was ving over time as they extend coverage (Morice et al replaced by HadCRUT4. In consequence, a data ana- 2012), introduce or modify interpolation methods lyst using HadCRUT3 in early 2012 would have con- that fill-in data for areas in which observations are cluded that the warming trend since 1998 had been sparse (Cowtan and Way 2014), or remove biases aris- slightly negative, whereas the same analyst using Had- ing from issues such as the transition of sea surface CRUT4 some months later would have concluded that temperature (SST) measurement from ships to buoys warming since 1998 had been positive. Likewise, (Karl et al 2015, Hausfather et al 2017). In con- although the datasets are known to yield similar long- sequence, research on short-term warming trends term estimates of global warming (e.g. from 1970 to may come to different conclusions, depending on the present), there were considerable differences what version of a dataset is being used. Figure 1, adap- between datasets for short-term trends early in the ted from the companion article by Risbey et al (2018), 21st century. See Risbey et al (2018) for details. shows that the consequences of revisions to GMST In this article, we apply the same historical con- datasets are far from trivial. The figure shows GMST ditioning to our analysis of the putative divergence trends starting in 1998 and ending at the times marked between models and observations during the period on the x-axis (vantage points). Each solid line shows known as the ‘pause.’ That is, we use the variants of the what we call ‘historically-conditioned’ trends, which datasets that were available at the time when assessing reflect only data that were available at each vantage evidence for the divergence between models and point. The thin lines, by contrast, show the observations, and we also condition the model 2 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 123007 S Lewandowsky et al projections on the estimates of the forcings on the cli- realizations (extended by the RCP4.5 forcing scenario mate system that were available at any given time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Statistical Language Backs Conservatism in Climate-Change
    Forum Statistical Language Backs Conservatism in Climate-Change Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article-abstract/69/3/209/5382637 by United Nations Library Geneva user on 22 March 2019 Assessments SALVADOR HERRANDO-PÉREZ , COREY J. A. BRADSHAW , STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, AND DAVID R. VIEITES The scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change is empirically settled, but communicating it to nonscientific audiences remains challenging. To be explicit about the state of knowledge on climate science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has adopted a vocabulary that ranks climate findings through certainty-calibrated qualifiers of confidence and likelihood. In this article, we quantified the occurrence of knowns and unknowns about “The Physical Science Basis” of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report by counting the frequency of calibrated qualifiers. We found that the tone of the IPCC’s probabilistic language is remarkably conservative (mean confidence is medium, and mean likelihood is 66%–100% or 0–33%), and emanates from the IPCC recommendations themselves, complexity of climate research, and exposure to politically motivated debates. Leveraging communication of uncertainty with overwhelming scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change should be one element of a wider reform, whereby the creation of an IPCC outreach working group could enhance the transmission of climate science to the panel’s audiences. Keywords: climate change, communication, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, terminology, uncertainty ommunicating scientific and statistical uncertainty and finally we identify challenges and propose future direc- C to nonacademic audiences, including policymakers, tions that could bolster the IPCC’s communication strategy is one of the most important challenges of modern sci- and the public transmission of climate science as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Topics: Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories About Politics and Public Policy
    PUBPOL 750.308: Topics: Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories about Politics and Public Policy Instructor: Prof. Brendan Nyhan Office: 4129 Weill Hall / 4408 ISR Classroom: 1210 Weill Hall Office hours: Thursday 9 AM{12 PM (Weill) Term: Winter 2019 (appts.: http://meetme.so/BrendanNyhan) Schedule: MW 2:30{3:50 PM Email: [email protected] \It is better to know less than to know so much that ain't so." {Josh Billings \A wise man should be humble enough to admit when he's wrong and change his mind based on new information." {Kanye West \Fearful Americans Stockpiling Facts Before Federal Government Comes To Take Them Away" {The Onion Overview of the course Why do people hold false or unsupported beliefs about politics and public policy and why are those beliefs so hard to change? This three-credit graduate course will explore the psychological factors that make people vulnerable to misinfor- mation and conspiracy theories and the reasons that corrections so often fail to change their minds. We will also analyze how those tendencies are exploited by political elites and consider possible approaches that journalists, civic reformers, and government officials could employ to combat misperceptions. Students will develop substantive expertise in how to measure, diagnose, and respond to false beliefs about politics and public policy; methodological expertise in reading and analyzing quantitative and experimental research in social science; and writing skills in preparing a policy memo making recommendations for how to address a prominent misperception and a final research paper analyzing the development of a specific misperception or conspiracy theory. Instructional approach Each class period will include a mix of lecture highlighting and expanding on key points from the readings and answering any questions about them, class discussion, and active learning exercises in which we critically examine the ideas introduced in the readings.
    [Show full text]
  • A Global Contagion of Infodemics & Conspiracy Theories
    A Global Contagion of Infodemics & Conspiracy Theories February 16, 2021 at 4:00pm Hawaii Speaker Biographies Amir ALI Assistant Professor of Political Science, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, India Amir Ali is an assistant professor at the Centre for Political Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. He teaches courses in political theory and has interests in multiculturalism, group rights and political Islam. Previously, he taught at Jamia Millia Islamia University in New Delhi and was a visiting fellow at the University of Oxford. He is the author of the 2016 book South Asian Islam and British Multiculturalism (Routledge). His new book, Brexit and Liberal Democracy: Populism, Sovereignty and Nation-State will be out this year. Anna-Sophie HARLING Managing Director, Europe and Executive Vice President, NewsGuard, London, United Kingdom @asharling Anna-Sophie Harling is managing director, Europe and executive vice president of partnerships at NewsGuard, based in London and New York. In 2020, she was selected to serve as a member of the Content Board of Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulatory authority. Prior to joining NewsGuard, Ms. Harling worked as Business Development Manager for Lexoo, a technology company in London, and at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton, an international law firm. She has previously worked at two German newspapers, Der Tagesspiegel and Märkische Allgemeine. Ms. Harling graduated from Yale University, where she was a Yale Journalism Scholar. Stephan LEWANDOWSKY Co-author, Conspiracy Theory Handbook; and Professor of Psychology and Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom @STWorg Stephan Lewandowsky is a cognitive scientist at the University of Bristol.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Court of Appeals for the NINTH CIRCUIT ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ◆◆◆⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ COUNTY of SAN MATEO, No
    Case: 18-15499, 01/29/2019, ID: 11171856, DktEntry: 95, Page 1 of 51 Nos. 18-15499, 18-15502, 18-15503, 18-16376 United States Court Of Appeals FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ◆◆◆⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ ⎯ COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, No. 18-15499 Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-cv-4929-VC v. N.D. Cal., San Francisco CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Hon. Vince Chhabria Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF IMPERIAL BEACH, No. 18-15502 Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-cv-4934-VC v. N.D. Cal., San Francisco CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Hon. Vince Chhabria Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF MARIN, No. 18-15503 Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 17-cv-4935-VC v. N.D. Cal., San Francisco CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., Hon. Vince Chhabria Defendants-Appellants COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., No. 18-16376 Plaintiff-Appellee, Nos. 18-cv-00450-VC; v. 18-cv-00458-VC; CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al., 18-cv-00732-VC Defendants-Appellants N.D. Cal., San Francisco Hon. Vince Chhabria BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ROBERT BRULE, CENTER FOR CLIMATE INTEGRITY, JUSTIN FARRELL, BENJAMIN FRANTA, STEPHAN LEWANDOWSKY, NAOMI ORESKES, and GEOFFREY SUPRAN IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEES AND AFFIRMANCE DANIEL P. MENSHER 1201 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 3200 ALISON S. GAFFNEY SEATTLE, WA 98101-3052 KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. Tel: (206) 623-1900 Counsel for Amici Curiae Case: 18-15499, 01/29/2019, ID: 11171856, DktEntry: 95, Page 2 of 51 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ......................................... 1 IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................ 2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 I. DEFENDANTS HAD ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR FOSSIL FUEL PRODUCTS ................................................. 3 A. Defendants had early knowledge that fossil fuel products were causing an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and that this increase could result in “catastrophic” consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • In Global Warming in Historical Context: - a Proposed Exogenous Cause of the Global Temperature Hiatus (II)
    Environmental Research Letters TOPICAL REVIEW • OPEN ACCESS Recent citations The ‘pause’ in global warming in historical context: - A Proposed Exogenous Cause of the Global Temperature Hiatus (II). Comparing models to observations Norman Treloar - Influence and seepage: An evidence- To cite this article: Stephan Lewandowsky et al 2018 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 123007 resistant minority can affect public opinion and scientific belief formation Stephan Lewandowsky et al - A fluctuation in surface temperature in historical context: reassessment and View the article online for updates and enhancements. retrospective on the evidence James S Risbey et al This content was downloaded from IP address 193.174.18.1 on 01/03/2019 at 11:09 Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (2018) 123007 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf372 TOPICAL REVIEW The ‘pause’ in global warming in historical context: (II). Comparing OPEN ACCESS models to observations RECEIVED 6 February 2017 Stephan Lewandowsky1,2,3 , Kevin Cowtan4, James S Risbey3 , Michael E Mann5, Byron A Steinman6, REVISED Naomi Oreskes7 and Stefan Rahmstorf8,9 11 November 2018 1 University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION 2 23 November 2018 University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia 3 CSIRO Oceans & Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia PUBLISHED 4 Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, United Kingdom 19 December 2018 5 Department of Meteorology and Atmospheric Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, State College, United States of America 6 Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota Duluth, Duluth, United States Original content from this of America work may be used under 7 Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Cambridge, United States of America the terms of the Creative 8 Commons Attribution 3.0 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, D-14473, Germany licence.
    [Show full text]
  • Attitudes Towards Climate Change Are Mediated by Perceived Social Consensus
    Memory & Cognition (2019) 47:1445–1456 https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-019-00948-y Science by social media: Attitudes towards climate change are mediated by perceived social consensus Stephan Lewandowsky1,2 · John Cook2,3 · Nicolas Fay2 · Gilles E. Gignac2 Published online: 21June2019 © The Author(s) 2019, corrected publication 2019 Abstract Internet blogs have become an important platform for the discussion of many scientific issues, including climate change. Blogs, and in particular the comment sections of blogs, also play a major role in the dissemination of contrarian positions that question mainstream climate science. The effect of this content on people’s attitudes is not fully understood. In particular, it is unknown how the interaction between the content of blog posts and blog comments affects readers’ attitudes. We report an experiment that orthogonally varied those two variables using blog posts and comments that either did, or did not, support the scientific consensus on climate change. We find that beliefs are partially shaped by readers’ perception of how widely an opinion expressed in a blog post appears to be shared by other readers. The perceived social consensus among readers, in turn, is determined by whether blog comments endorse or reject the contents of a post. When comments reject the content, perceived reader consensus is lower than when comments endorse the content. The results underscore the importance of perceived social consensus on opinion formation. Keywords Social media · Science communication · Online disinformation · Perceived consensus Americans are now as likely to resort to the Internet as their dynamic has changed the nature of information transfer, primary source of science information as they are to rely on with readers no longer just consuming content passively but television (Su, Akin, Brossard, Scheufele, & Xenos, 2015).
    [Show full text]
  • 'Alice in Wonderland' Mechanics of the Rejection of (Climate) Science
    Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., & Lloyd, E. (2018). The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism. Synthese, 195(1), 175-196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6 Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record License (if available): CC BY Link to published version (if available): 10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6 Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Springer Verlag at DOI: 10.1007/s11229-016-1198-. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. University of Bristol - Explore Bristol Research General rights This document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/red/research-policy/pure/user-guides/ebr-terms/ Synthese DOI 10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6 The ‘Alice in Wonderland’ mechanics of the rejection of (climate) science: simulating coherence by conspiracism Stephan Lewandowsky1,2 · John Cook2,3 · Elisabeth Lloyd4 Received: 18 February 2016 / Accepted: 4 August 2016 © The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate sci- ence form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from human economic activities are causing the global climate to warm and unless GHG emissions are drastically reduced in the near future, the risks from climate change will continue to grow and major adverse consequences will become unavoidable.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with The
    Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 6 (2017) 353–369 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition journa l homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac Beyond Misinformation: Understanding and Coping with the “Post-Truth” Era ∗ Stephan Lewandowsky University of Bristol, United Kingdom University of Western Australia, Australia Ullrich K.H. Ecker University of Western Australia, Australia John Cook George Mason University, United States The terms “post-truth” and “fake news” have become increasingly prevalent in public discourse over the last year. This article explores the growing abundance of misinformation, how it influences people, and how to counter it. We examine the ways in which misinformation can have an adverse impact on society. We summarize how people respond to corrections of misinformation, and what kinds of corrections are most effective. We argue that to be effective, scientific research into misinformation must be considered within a larger political, technological, and societal context. The post-truth world emerged as a result of societal mega-trends such as a decline in social capital, growing economic inequality, increased polarization, declining trust in science, and an increasingly fractionated media landscape. We suggest that responses to this malaise must involve technological solutions incorporating psychological principles, an interdisciplinary approach that we describe as “technocognition.” We outline a number of recommendations to counter misinformation in a post-truth world. General Audience Summary Imagine a world that considers knowledge to be “elitist.” Imagine a world in which it is not medical knowledge but a free-for-all opinion market on Twitter that determines whether a newly emergent strain of avian flu is really contagious to humans.
    [Show full text]
  • The Consensus Handbook Why the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change Is Important
    The Consensus Handbook Why the scientific consensus on climate change is important John Cook Sander van der Linden Edward Maibach Stephan Lewandowsky Written by: John Cook, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University Sander van der Linden, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge Edward Maibach, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, and CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia First published in March, 2018. For more information, visit http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/consensus-handbook/ Graphic design: Wendy Cook Page 21 image credit: John Garrett Cite as: Cook, J., van der Linden, S., Maibach, E., & Lewandowsky, S. (2018). The Consensus Handbook. DOI:10.13021/G8MM6P. Available at http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/all/consensus-handbook/ Introduction Based on the evidence, 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human- caused climate change is happening. This scientific consensus has been a hot topic in recent years. It’s been referenced by presidents, prime ministers, senators, congressmen, and in numerous television shows and newspaper articles. However, the story of consensus goes back decades. It’s been an underlying theme in climate discussions since the 1990s. Fossil fuel groups, conservative think-tanks, and political strategists were casting doubt on the consensus for over a decade before social scientists began studying the issue. From the 1990s to this day, most of the discussion has been about whether there is a scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming. As the issue has grown in prominence, a second discussion has arisen. Should we even be talking about scientific consensus? Is it productive? Does it distract from other important issues? This handbook provides a brief history of the consensus on climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • Oreskes CV FEB 2020
    Naomi Oreskes Professor of the History of Science Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, Cambridge MA [email protected] http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsdept/bios/oreskes.html Education B.Sc. (First Class Honours) 1981 Royal School of Mines, Imperial College Ph.D. 1990 Stanford University (Graduate Special Program: Geological Research and History of Science) EMPLOYMENT Current Professor of the History of Science, Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University. Columnist, Scientific American magazine, “The Observatory” 2005-2013 Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies Adjunct Professor of Geosciences (from 2007), University of California, San Diego 2008-2011 Provost, Sixth College, University of California, San Diego 2003-2006 Director, Science Studies Program, University of California, San Diego 1998- 2005 Associate Professor, Department of History & Program in Science Studies, UCSD 1996-1998 Associate Professor, History and Philosophy of Science Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University 1991-1996 Assistant Professor of Earth Sciences and Adjunct Asst. Professor of History, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1990-1991 Visiting Asst. Professor of Earth Sciences and Visiting Asst. Professor of History Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire 1984-1989 Research Assistant, Geology Department, and Teaching Assistant, Depts. of Geology, Philosophy, and Applied Earth Sciences Stanford University 1981-1984 Geologist, Western Mining
    [Show full text]
  • Harnessing the Uncertainty Monster : Putting Quantitative Constraints on the Intergenerational Social Discount Rate
    This is a repository copy of Harnessing the uncertainty monster : Putting quantitative constraints on the intergenerational social discount rate. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/115794/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Lewandowsky, Stephan, Freeman, Mark Charles orcid.org/0000-0003-4521-2720 and Mann, Michael (2017) Harnessing the uncertainty monster : Putting quantitative constraints on the intergenerational social discount rate. Global and Planetary Change. pp. 155-166. ISSN 0921-8181 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.03.007 Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can’t change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ 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/ Uncertainty and Social Discount Rates 1 Running head: UNCERTAINTY AND SOCIAL DISCOUNT RATES Harnessing the uncertainty monster: Putting quantitative constraints on the intergenerational social discount rate Stephan Lewandowsky University of Bristol and University of Western Australia Mark C.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPACT [Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories]
    Conspiracy theories: guide and recommendations GUIDE TO CONSPIRACY THEORIES COMPACT [Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories] 1 COMPACT [Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories] is an EU-funded COST Action research network of 150 scholars from across Europe who are investigating the causes and consequences of conspiracy theories. For more information: www.conspiracytheories.eu Author: COMPACT Education Group Acknowledgements: Michael Butter, Ela Drążkiewicz, Asbjørn Dyrendal, Jaron Harambam, Daniel Jolley, Olivier Klein, Peter Knight, Péter Krekó, Stephan Lewandowsky, Claus Oberhauser Design: Peter Knight Download: This report is available to download from: www.conspiracytheories.eu A full-length version of the recommendations section (“The Conspiracy Theory Handbook,” authored by Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook) can be downloaded from http://sks.to/conspiracy March 2020 Published under a Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) Image: by Pete Linforth from Pixabay 1 Conspiracy theories: guide and recommendations 2 Conspiracy theories: guide and recommendations Table of contents 1 UNDERSTANDING CONSPIRACY THEORIES 4 1.1 What is a conspiracy theory? 4 1.2 Are conspiracy theories the same as fake news? 4 1.3 Was the term “conspiracy theory” invented by the CIA? 5 1.4 How do conspiracy theories work? 5 1.5 What’s the difference between conspiracy theories and real conspiracies? 5 1.6 Who believes in conspiracy theories? 6 1.7 Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? 7 1.8 How have conspiracy theories developed over time?
    [Show full text]