630 likes | 754 Views
Mind the Gap climate science and the public. ClimateSight.org. CREDIBILITY. most credible. 0%. organizations. “Humans are not causing the Earth to warm”. ~0%. journals. < 3%. scientists. 57%. communicators. 53%. public. least credible. (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004).
E N D
Mind the Gap climate science and the public ClimateSight.org
most credible 0% organizations “Humans are not causing the Earth to warm” ~0% journals < 3% scientists 57% communicators 53% public least credible (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004) (George Mason University, 2010) (Oreskes, 2004) (Doran and Zimmerman, 2009)
1. Scientists are ignorant 2. Scientists are frauds 3. Scientists know what they’re doing
The Greenhouse Effect 1824 1859 1896
today 2.1 million years Vostok et al, Global Warming Art, Honisch et al
CO2 from fossil fuels is lighter Global Warming Art
more greenhouse gases warming
We should be cooling....but we’re not Global Warming Art
the fingerprint the DNA evidence the smoking gun
killed 97% of ocean species 70% of land species “The Great Dying”
1. Scientists are ignorant 2. Scientists are frauds 3. Scientists know what they’re doing
organizations journals scientists communicators public
? 1. Climatology is a complex science ? ? ? ?
!!! 2. Powerful people are willing to exploit this complexity
“Global warming is the greatest hoax ever imposed upon the American people”
fewer journalists ....especially in science
“Science journalism....is too often practiced by journalists who know so little about the subject they’re covering that they can’t properly evaluate the reliability or trustworthiness of potential sources. The result is that sources with no credibility in the field routinely appear alongside genuine experts as part of an effort to provide balance.” James Hyrynyshyn
“hide the decline” actual temperatures tree growth (Briffa et al, 1998)
“hide the decline” removing regional tree ring data known to be erroneous covering up a drop in global temperatures
British Parliament: “the focus on CRU has largely been misplaced” “actions were in line with common practice” “they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead” “analyses have been repeated and the conclusions have been verified”
University of East Anglia: “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the CRU” “no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda” “allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid”
“The correspondence appears to suggest researchers may have squelched and skewed data to buttress the idea the world is warming up.”