Thursday, January 29, 2015

In this Age of Climate Denial, How Do You Tell a Reliable Blog from an Unreliable Blog?

In this age of near-universal online access to information, it seems everyone has an opinion. Whereas plumbers, brain surgeons, and scientists once had to communicate on a technical level solely with other plumbers, brain surgeons, and scientists, now they have to communicate directly with the public. In general this is a good thing. People of all backgrounds can find information on the internet about pretty much anything they find of interest. On the other hand, as the authors of the book Unscientific America note, “[t]he problem with the internet is obvious to anyone who has ever used it; There’s tons of information available, but much of it is crap.”

As anyone who has spent any time "discussing" climate science on Facebook and other social networking sites knows, invariably someone will start linking to blogs. Science isn't actually done on blogs - science happens in peer-reviewed publications, at scientific conferences, and in other scientific venues - but in this online age it makes sense that science is brought to the public through online blogs.

It can be a challenge for the public to determine which blogs offer reliable information and which ones are denialist blogs whose intention is to misinform. And yet, it's actually easier than you might think to weed out the "crap." In the future I'll compile links to specific blogs that can be helpful to a public honestly interested in learning about the science of man-made climate change, but for this post I'll focus on some simple questions to help you tell the reliable from the unreliable blogs.

Before doing that, let me briefly note that the obvious best source for discussions about the science are the scientific sources directly. All of the key climate science organizations - NASA, NOAA, Climatic Research Unit, Japanese Meteorological Agency, World Meteorological Organization, IPCC, National Snow and Ice Data Center and many others - now have online blogs and information services. These sites provide updates ranging from easy-to-understand primers to highly technical analyses. Some individual climate scientists also have blogs where they try to answer questions about their research, clarify the science, and rebut falsehoods coming from denialists.

Outside of these direct scientific sources there are many blogs that delve into the subject of climate science. To determine which offer reliable scientific discussion and which are merely conspiracy ranting or lobbyist-funded misinformation, ask yourself these basic questions:

1) Who runs the site and writes the blog posts?

Reliable blogs are often written by actual climate scientists. A good example of this is RealClimate, which was launched in 2004 by a group of active climate scientists who today have combined for thousands of peer-reviewed climate science publications. There are other reliable blogs that may not be written by climate scientists, but the scientists who write these usually check with climate scientists to make sure they understand the data correctly.

Unreliable blogs are usually written by non-scientists, often posting anonymously or with fake names to hide their identity. Many of the posts are written by lobbyists or political spokespeople or simply hacks that like the attention. The occasional scientist usually is in an unrelated field with no climate expertise, or if an actual climate scientist (which is rare) posts, it's always one associated with a climate denial lobbying group. WUWT is a good example of this kind of unreliable blog.

2) Does the blog cite the science in context?

Reliable blogs discuss the science with all of the data considered. If examining a single study they compare it to other relevant studies and the state of the knowledge of the topic being discussed. They examine how this one piece of the puzzle fits, or doesn't fit, into the bigger picture. The Skeptical Science (SkS) blog is a good example of a reliable blog. SkS evaluates the claims of denialists and discusses the relevant science in order to communicate an accurate picture. They link directly to the relevant studies being discussed.

Unreliable blogs cherry pick data and ignore the context. They don't look at how a study fits or doesn't fit the bigger picture; often they draw a conclusion completely divorced from logic. For example, a blog is unreliable if it commonly makes statements like claiming since 2014 was not the hottest year (a false premise), therefore, global warming isn't happening (also false, and additionally a false conclusion that doesn't even logically follow from their own initial premise). Unreliable blogs generally cite other unreliable blogger's opinions rather than linking directly to the actual study.

3) Does the blog accurately communicate the science?

This may be a little harder for the public to determine, but basically if NASA, NOAA, and other climate research organizations state a conclusion after evaluating the sum total of their research, and a given blog claims something different from, or opposite of, what the scientific organization is saying, then the blog is unreliable. [See next point]

4) Is the science being discussed published in peer-reviewed journals?

It must be remembered that scientists at NASA, NOAA, etc. all conduct scientific research and publish that research in peer-reviewed journals. The science is done by doing the study, publishing the methods + results + analysis + conclusions, and undergoing scientific scrutiny by other scientists who understand the technical details. Science is not done in a blog. If any blogger wants to contradict the published science, he must conduct research and publish through the peer-review process. "Cuz I said so on my blog" is not science.

So reliable blogs are those that rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies, accurately relayed, and with conclusions consistent with the data presented.

Unreliable blogs are those that rely on something someone did on their laptop computer one morning and then faked up a graph with false conclusions. Usually when you see a lot of "conclusion" information on a graph (along with obvious denialist tip-offs like "Climate for Dummies") you know you're dealing with a blogger more interested in pushing his opinion than actual science.

Another type of unreliable blog is the kind that intentionally deceives the public with what looks on the surface to be a summary of a peer-reviewed paper. These are usually professional denier lobbyist blogs. What they do is create a false "summary" that intentionally misrepresents the findings of an actual published study, i.e., the blog cherry picks portions of the study, fabricates a new story line about the study findings, and posts "conclusions" that are often opposite to the study being cited. These lobbyist blogs often have deceptive names and intentionally try to confuse the public. CO2 Science (an industry blog run by paid lobbyists) is such a deceptive denier blog.

There are other ways to tell which blogs are reliable, accurate, and honest versus unreliable, intentionally not accurate, and dishonest, but I'll save those for another post.

It's important for the public to learn which specific blogs can be relied upon for an honest discussion of the science, and which specific blogs are never reliable. And yes, it does come down to a blog being reliable versus unreliable (or honest vs dishonest, if you will).

Basically there are three types of blogs out there:

1) Direct scientific organizations (e.g., NASA, NOAA, etc.): These blogs are always reliable.

2) Science-oriented blogs e.g., (RealClimate, Skeptical Science): These blogs are always reliable.

3) Denialist blogs (e.g., WUWT, CO2 Science): These blogs are always NOT reliable.

If you want to learn about the science honestly, stick to #1 and #2. Honest discussions of the science can be done on these blogs.

In contrast, nothing on #3 will be honestly presented. Ever.

I'll post a list of reliable blogs in a future post.


Anonymous said...

There are times where a scientist running through numbers on his computer can be a valid source of information. Some of the science being debated by the denialists is so basic, that the data to refute the claims would be too basic to be publishable. Here is an example of this. More than once I have seen claims that the ocean can not be becoming more acidic due to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the air because the warming of the oceans would cause the water to lose carbon dioxide as everyone knows that the solubility of a gas decreases with temperature. When I mention Henry's Law, they counter with the solubility. Therefore, I tracked down a reference for the variation of the Henry's Law Constant with temperature and then generated a series of overlapping graphs of the solubility of CO2 in water vs temperature versus CO2 concentration in the air above, assuming an atmospheric pressure of 1 atmosphere. The purpose of the graph was to illustrate that how concentration of CO2 in water was affected by both temperature AND CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. While this is hardly a publishable study, it clearly shot down this denialist argument.

Thomas H. Pritchett said...

I am the Anonymous poster above.

The Dake Page said...

Facts do shut down denialists' arguments because all denialists' arguments are based on ignorance, intentional cherry picking designed to mislead, or both. But think about what happens next in your example. Invariably the denialist will hop to some other falsehood or cherry picked mischaracterization. Then another. Then another. Each time the denialist "argument" is shot down the denialist simply moves on to the next "argument." Keep in mind that every single argument put forth by denialists has already been debunked hundreds or thousands of times before, yet they continue to repeat them over and over. These people aren't interested in learning, they are interested only in either creating the illusion of debate (to block policy action) or stroking their insecure egos ("gee whiz, I'm smarter than all the world's climate scientists), or both.

Which presents the question of why bother to engage with denialists? The only possible answer is to prove them wrong so that others learn, but that isn't what happens in an exchange on social media. No one on Facebook, for example, is going to change their opinion. Those who understand the science acknowledge it; those who don't, deny it. Once a position is held by denialists they have invested their self-worth in being "right," so cannot acknowledge reality without a significant dent in that perceived self-worth.

That has led me to believe that engaging with denialists is both a waste of time and a disservice to those who do want to learn. Instead, we should focus on providing accurate information about the science and the process of determining that information so that honest people can feel comfortable with their own decisions to acknowledge what virtually every climate scientist - and physics - so unequivocally demonstrates.

Steve Owens said...

So if all climate change "denialists" claims have been debunked thousands of times and they have no new information to offer, then it stands to reason that you ought to be able to build a chatter bot which does an effective job of arguing with a denier on your behalf. No sense wasting energy doing something a machine could be programmed to do. IF on the other hand their arguments are NOT completely without merit, then their challenges will force you to dig deeper into the truth of what it is you believe.

The Dake Page said...

Your last sentence is a non sequitur. First off, science isn't about what we believe, it's about evidence. There is 100+ year of unequivocal evidence demonstrating that human activity, primarily fossil fuel use, is warming the climate system. Unequivocal, as in undeniable.

Secondly, denier arguments are, in fact, completely without merit. They are self-contradictory, wholly illogical, and, often, ridiculous on their face. But that doesn't stop deniers from repeating these known falsehoods over and over and over. They do so on purpose knowing that repetition is often mistaken for truth. More accurately, it becomes "truthiness" as Stephen Colbert defined it - the truth that deniers want to exist, where reality is "fake news" and fake news is "reality."

Deniers count on the fact that people have their own lives and so mostly aren't taking the time to become informed on either key issues or the science behind climate change. Deniers intentionally exploit that fact to manipulate public opinion. After all, the professional deniers are lobbyists who do exactly that for a living, as well as give cover to ideological politicians who depend on the massive campaign contributions those lobbyists and their member companies slip into politicians' coffers.

So there is a need to continuously fight against denier dishonesty and misinformation. This page seeks to do what it can in that regard. Others do the same. Combined we might be able to counter the rampant falsehoods and disinformation emanating from politicians (primarily from one party) and the lobbyists who seem to have no compunction about blatantly lying to the public.