By IANS,
Washington: Scientists who are not convinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research than peers who are convinced, says a new study.
In a quantitative assessment – the first of its kind to address this issue – a Stanford University team analysed the number of research papers published by more than 900 climate researchers and the number of times their work was cited by other scientists.
“These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions,” said William Anderegg of Stanford who led the study.
Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis.
Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.
Prominence was assessed by taking the four most frequently cited papers published in any field by each scientist – not just climate science publications – and tallying the number of times those papers were cited by other researchers.
Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.
The scientists whose work was analysed included all the researchers involved in producing the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) working group.
The Stanford team also determined the top 100 climate researchers, based on the total number of climate related publications each had, which produced an even more telling result, Anderegg said.
“When you look at the leading scientists who have made any sort of statement about anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change, you find 97 percent of those top 100 surveyed scientists explicitly agreeing with or endorsing the IPCC’s assessment,” he said.
That result has been borne out by several other published studies that used different methodology, as well as some that are due out later this summer, he said.
“I never object to quoting opinions that are ‘way out’. I think there is nothing wrong with that,” said Stephen Schneider, professor of biology and study co-author, according to a Stanford release.
“But if the media doesn’t report that something is a ‘way out’ opinion relative to the mainstream, then how is the average person going to know the relative credibility of what is being said?”
“It is sad that we even have to do this,” said Schneider. “[Too much of] the media world has just folded up and fired its reporters with expertise in science.”
These findings were published online in the Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.