follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus
 

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« More conversation -- & an announcment of my commitment to the same | Main | Motivated reasoning & its cognates »
Friday
May172013

Annual "new study" finds 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made climate change; public consensus sure to follow once news gets out

Hey! Did you hear? A new study shows that 97% of scientists believe that human activity is responsible for climate change!

We all need to be sure this new information gets reported far and wide -- not only because it is genuinely newsworthy, a true addition to what's known about the state of scientific opinion -- but also because public unawareness of this degree of consensus surely explains cultural polarization over climate change.

The ugly, demeaning, public-welfare-enervating debate will be over soon!

Why didn't anyone think of telling the public about this before now?!

 

 

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

References (1)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.

Reader Comments (106)

Maybe another update (or new article ) is due.... Prof Mike Hulme (UEA and founder of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change) has very harsh words for Cook’s, Nuticcelli’s 97% Consensus Paper.

But who will tell Barack Obabma who cited John Cook's 97% paper?


Hulme: “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed.

It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.

It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’.

It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?” - Mike Hulme

——————————–
from this article:
http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/
Dana Nuccitelli (co-author) was very upset about it on twitter

July 26, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

@Barry--

wow. thanks.

I agree that the whole enterprise of nose-counting here is ill-considered -- along so many dimensions that it is hard to count.

For that reason, my own inclination is to ignore this whole thing; but the "thing" is whether it makes sense to get entangled in this sort of mess & I guess that is still worth addressing insofar as it continues to happen.... Of course, if others are addressing this, it's not obvious that my saying more adds much value!

In any case, I'm grateful you drew my attention to the Hulme comment, which I hadn't seen.

July 26, 2013 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

Whst cook has done in attempting to further message the 97% consensus. Is to inadvertantly actually to raise the question and finally focus attention what is the definition of the consensus they are agreeing about! And by Cooks definitions it includes the absolute majority of sceptical bloggers. Let alone Lindzen, spencer, soon, carter, etc. Spencer said the same to congress. He is part of the ' 97%'

Dana and Ben Pile discuss that further in the comments.
Judith Curry has just run with this as well. Popcorn time?

Lindzen has been saying forever a doubling of CO2 you get 1.2C absent feedbacks.

Cook in the run up to the project defined the consensus they were looking at as AGW with 'no specific quantification' - 'the p0rno approach' Cook's own words!

Which absolutly means lindzen. So just like the Doran survey 2 question. Most sceptics fall into it. And Hulme dismisses Anderegg aswell. As did Tom Wigley

Thus the soundbite of the 97% consendus is now exposed fir whst it is. Or fir hiw it is being used by some. PR

Dana, Cook, Lew, etc are seemingly oblivious to the fact that in the UK at least it is quite easy to have rational disagreement. In fact rather more agreement than is seeminglg possible in the USA and have drinks/chats together. Warren is a nice guy.

Dana and others were giving Warren Pearce, Nottinham Uni & Making Science Public a hard time for even running the article, which will just push nottingham towards the sceptics. Which in this case includes Mike Hulme ref Cook's Dana's work! Have you read the whole article. I have added some comments there which give some background. And The author also discusses further in the comments.

July 26, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Let's take a trip back to reality here.

And by Cooks definitions it includes the absolute majority of sceptical bloggers ... Cook in the run up to the project defined the consensus they were looking at as AGW with 'no specific quantification'

False

Dana and others were giving Warren Pearce, Nottinham Uni & Making Science Public a hard time for even running the article

False. I said it was a rather horrid article and asked for the opportunity to reply, which Pearce happily granted. Presumably they'll publish my reply next week.

July 27, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterDana Nuccitelli

Dana's post-modern "False" means "Mostly true, but I have applied my cunning plan to make it look as if it were false"

July 27, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterMaurizio Morabito

But the '97%' statistic is a rotten one. Try checking the various origins of it.

February 14, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterJS

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>