J.P. Abraham, J. Cook, J. T. Fasullo, P. H. Jacobs, S. A. Mandia, and D. A Nuccitelli, Review of the Consensus and Asymmetric Quality of Research on Human-Induced Climate Change, Cosmopolis, Vol. 2014-1, pp. 3-18, 2014.
Climate science is a massively interdisciplinary field with different areas understood to varying degrees. One area that has been well understood for decades is the fundamental fact that humans are causing global warming. The greenhouse effect has been understood since the 1800s, and subsequent research has refined our understanding of the impact of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases on the planet. Also increasing has been the consensus among the world’s climate scientists that the basic principles of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are correct. This has been demonstrated by multiple reinforcing studies that the consensus of scientists on the basic tenets of AGW is nearly unanimous. Nevertheless, the general public in many countries remains unconvinced not only of the existence of AGW, but also of the degree of scientific consensus. Additionally, there remain a few high-profile scientists who have continued to put forth alternative explanations for observed climatic changes across the globe. Here, we summarize research on the degree of agreement amongst scientists and we assess the quality of scholarship from the contrarian scientists. Many major contrarian arguments against mainstream thinking have been strongly challenged and criticized in the scientific literature; significant flaws have often been found. The same fate has not befallen the prominent consensus studies.
The paper is behind a pay wall but one of my co-authors, Dana Nuccitelli, has a good summary posted at The Guardian.
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF) was launched in January 2012 by Scott Mandia and Joshua Wolfe to provide valuable legal resources to our climate scientists who are in need. CSLDF needs your help.
CSLDF needs to raise $80,000. The great news is that philanthropist Charles Zeller has graciously offered to MATCH the first $40,000 that is raised and philanthropist Peter Cross has offered to put up the first $10,000. This means CSLDF already has the first $20,000 and needs only to raise another $30,000 in private donations to reach the goal. We need your help so CSLDF can reach this goal.
For the previous two years, CSLDF has been managed by Scott and Josh “from their kitchens”. They both have full-time jobs and families with small children and neither receives compensation for their time. Scott and Josh have accomplished much over the years on a part-time basis. To date, CSLDF has:
- Raised litigation fees to help Dr. Michael Mann defend climate science from politically-motivated witch-hunts.
- Provided resources to legal experts from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) so they could offer free legal advice to scientists at professional conferences.
- Offered legal counsel to scientists hit with frivolous Freedom of Information Act requests.
- Provided legal workshops to scientists at professional conferences.
- Offered a series of legal education webinars partnering with American Geophysical Union (AGU).
But now it is time to “go professional” and that is where you can help. $80,000 can move the organization to this next level. CSLDF will use your tax-deductible donations to hire a full-time Executive Director who will manage the day-to-day operations of providing legal help to our experts as well as increasing fundraising efforts. Having the full-time professional helps to assure that CSLDF will be there for our scientists years down the road. After all, climate change is not going anywhere and the sad fact is that neither will the legal attacks on our scientists.
Donations are tax-deductible and can be sent by visiting the CSLDF website at climatesciencedefensefund.org and clicking the Donate button. Donations are sent to our fiscal sponsor PEER but are earmarked for CSLDF. Through PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility), a private non-profit organization organized under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue code, your contribution will be tax-deductible.
You can also send a check made out to PEER, with Climate Science LDF on the memo line, to support efforts to help scientists defend themselves:
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
2000 P Street, NW #240
Washington, D.C. 20036
International donors can use PayPal. Send to email@example.com as the recipient and put CSLDF in the subject line of your payment.
Thank you for your support.
Update (03/20/14 @ 2:50 PM ET): CSLDF is NOT providing financial support for Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation suit against CEI, Simberg, National Review, and Steyn nor for the libel case against Tim Ball.
Charles Krauthammer calls the President of the United States a whore and its science experts propagandists. We can choose to listen to this unprofessional diatribe and not worry about climate change or we can choose to listen to the 98% of the word’s climate experts who tell us that humans are dangerously warming the planet by dumping billions of tons of heat-trapping gases into the air each year.
We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to the conclusions of the United States National Academy of Sciences and every international academy of science who agrees that humans are dangerously warming the planet.
We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to the United States Military and Intelligence community who warn that climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions.
We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to health officials who warn us that climate change could be the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.
We can listen to a man who calls the President a whore, or we can listen to insurers who manage trillions of dollars when they tell us that climate change is one of the greatest strategic risks currently facing the property/casualty insurance industry.
So who are you going to listen to?
Republican Meteorologist & Entrepreneur: Debating Cause of Climate Change is Moral and Scientific Equivalent of Debating Gravity
A few weeks ago, a journalist contacted the Climate Science Rapid Response Team to get various opinions about whether climate scientists should take a public position or in some sense a political position on the issue and get involved in the debate/discussion over climate change in public venues and through media coverage. After sending the request to several climate experts, I also asked Paul Douglas, a meteorologist, registered Republican, and entrepreneur, for his thoughts. With permission, I have posted his response below:
Reposted from 21 January 2014 Skeptical Science (John Cook)
Professor Scott Mandia at Suffolk County Community College teaches his students using the approach of agnotology-based learning. Agnotology is the study of ignorance and misconceptions. Agnotology-based learning addresses misconceptions and myths while teaching climate science. Two decades of research have found that direct refutation in the classroom is one of the most effective ways of reducing misconceptions.
Read the rest of this entry »
Reposted from The Bridge: Connecting Science and Policy (American Geophysical Union blogosphere)
December 3, 2013
By Scott Mandia & Joshua Wolfe, co-founders of CSLDF
So you are having a great time at the AGU Fall Meeting. You are meeting science colleagues from around the world, you are seeing cutting edge research presented in the scientific program, and you are enjoying the sights and sounds of beautiful San Francisco.
Then you check your email and the blood drains from your face.
On reading The US and China Play Chicken Over Climate Change in The Diplomat, I could not help to think of the following analogy:
Mr. Sam and Mr. Wong are two competing businessmen trapped in a house fire along with all of their widgets. Keeping the price of their widgets low is the key to their economic success. It is vital that they, along with their widgets, get out of this fire as soon as possible. This should be obvious to all.
So why are they not rushing out of this house fire? Well, there is a catch. The only exit available requires a fee. The first person to exit pays a little more than the second person to exit.
Sam and Wong continue to argue about who exits first because each wishes to pay the lower second exit fee.