Showing posts with label John Abraham. Show all posts

Written by fatih al-farahat in , ,


Climate Scientists Strike Back: John Abraham, Scott Mandia and Ray Weymann form a Climate Science Rapid Response Team, 40 scientists already on board

Climate Scientists Strike Back
A year after the CRU e-mails were stolen and used to create a non-existent scandal, can a trio of scientists clear the air of global warming misinformation?
by Kate Sheppard, Mother Jones, November 17, 2010
A year ago this week, the already-heated global warming debate exploded into allegations of a massive scientific fraud when a trove of emails between climate scientists was stolen and posted online. Portions of the emails were cherry-picked and taken out of context to create the impression that researchers were engaged in a sinister plot to mislead the public and silence detractors. Dubbed "ClimateGate" by global warming deniers, the ensuing hype succeeded in further clouding the public's understanding of climate science.
Never mind that it was a non-controversy—that myriad models and reams of data have concluded that the planet is warming due to human activity, or that five separate investigations have confirmed that the ClimateGate scientists did nothing improper. In the combustible world of climate denial, the email release added fuel to the fire, reigniting old attacks on science in the blogosphere and among right-wing members of Congress—including a few who are in line to lead powerful House committees next year.
While the episode inflamed climate skeptics, it also forced some climate scientists to rethink their role in the debate. Many scientists have been wary of being pulled into policy debates and of appearing as advocates rather than dispassionate researchers. Some just assumed that the science spoke for itself. But the email release and the subsequent attacks raised the question of whether they can afford to remain on the sidelines any longer as their work is distorted, largely by people with political agendas.

The confusion sowed about climate science recently inspired a trio of scientists to create a "rapid response" team to dispel misinformation. While organizers say the new project is not direcly tied to the anniversary of the email release, it's clearly the result of a good deal of frustration on the part of scientists about the direction discussion of the subject has gone in the past year. "There's a huge disconnect between what is known in the science community and what is understood in the general public," says John Abraham, a professor of engineering at the University of St. Thomas and one of the leaders of what he and his colleagues are calling the Climate Science Rapid Response Team. "There's a real strong consensus among scientists and a lack of consensus in the general public."
The gulf between scientists and the American public, says Abraham, has "obviously gotten wider over the last couple years." He attributes this to the phony email scandal, as well as "to a concerted effort by a number of organizations who have interests, generally ideological interests, in blocking climate action." Media coverage of the issue has also been lacking, he says, and many scientists have shied away from discussing their work in the press.
Launching later this week, the Climate Science Rapid Response Team has signed up more than 40 scientists to take part in the initiative, and organizers are hoping to grow the total to at least 100. The idea is that the coordinators will serve as matchmakers between scientists and the news media. Reporters can contact the team with specific questions about science or requests for a television and radio appearances by participating researchers. Their focus is on the science—not on wading into policy debates—but their intention is to help the public discourse move beyond the "is-it-happening" question, says Abraham.
It's clear there's a long way to go to improve public understanding of the issue. A poll conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication showed a significant decline in the belief that the planet is warming due to human activity—from 57 percent in 2008 to 47 percent in early 2010—immediately following the disclosure of the emails. The numbers did bounce back up a bit in polls conducted later in 2010; another Yale studyreleased this fall found that 63 percent of Americans understand that the planet is heating up, and about half of those surveyed recognized that human activity is to blame. Yet a significant majority of the people surveyed had major misconceptions about why the planet's warming, attributing it to, among other things: the space program, toxic waste, the hole in the ozone layer, and volcanoes. The study concluded that if Americans were graded on their understanding of climate science, 52 percent of the population would get an "F." Yale's researchers also found that only 34 percent of the public agreed with the statement, "Most scientists think global warming is happening." The largest percentage—45 percent—thought there was "a lot of disagreement among scientists" on global warming.
"There's always been a level of frustration with the difference between what scientists know and what people think we know," says Scott Mandia, a professor of physical sciences at New York's Suffolk Community College and another leader of the rapid response team. "We have to accept much of the blame. It's not good enough to publish information in journals and expect it get out."
Ray Weymann, a retired astrophysicist who's also part of effort, says he and his colleagues have no interest in being "attack dogs." But, he adds, "I think it's absolutely in order for climate scientists to respond to something that is patently inaccurate."
Wading into the politically charged global warming war has long caused heartburn for many climate scientists. "The truth is, most scientific societies are reluctant to go beyond issuing formal statements about science-related issues, even in the face of withering attacks on the scientific fields they represent," Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out in a recent op-ed. This makes stepped-up efforts to defend the science of global warming all the more important, say the rapid response team's organizers.
"A lot of scientists believe the truth will set us free, but the truth has been locked up in journals, and it's not getting out to the public," says Mandia. Until it does, he says, "An alternate truth is getting out there."
Kate Sheppard covers energy and environmental politics in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. For more of her stories, click here. She Tweets here. Get Kate Sheppard's RSS feed.
Link:  http://motherjones.com/environment/2010/11/climategate-global-warming-rapid-response

Written by fatih al-farahat in


Scientists Get Off the Sidelines to Right Media Wrongs: John Abraham begins Climate Rapid Response Communications Team


Climate Rapid Response Communications Team Gears Up

Scientists Get Off the Sidelines to Right Media Wrongs


Increasing Global TemperatureSOURCE: NOAA National Climactic Data CenterNASA's graph shows the increase in average global temperature, as measured by meteorological stations around the world.
by Sean Pool, Science Progress, November 16th, 2010 | Share This | Print Print
It’s not easy being a climate scientist these days. They live in a world where well-funded organizations collude to spread lies and misinformation about their discipline, and wherepolitical pundits and elected officials alike engage in blatant harassment to promote an anti-science political agenda. Conservative pundits such as Mark Morano, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh have called for climate scientists to be “publicly flogged,” to commit “hara-kiri,” and worse.
Sadly, despite the rancor and conspicuous absence of any data or actual science, these fossil fuel-funded tactics have proven effective at swaying public opinion. Poll results have shown a marked decline in Americans’ belief in global warming, from a high of 85 percent in a 2006 poll to 63 percent during the summer of 2010.
Surely some of the blame must be shared by traditional media outlets for elevating the spurious claims of television weathermen and ex-governors to the same level as peer-reviewed, data-driven, scientific analysis conducted by credentialed experts. Othersblamed climate scientists themselves for not being better organized to defend themselves against the onslaught of well-funded and well-organized public relations professionals.
But who can blame them? Scientists have never been particularly good at communicating with the media— historically it’s not really been their job. Scientists are trained not to shape public opinion but to examine the natural world. But that may have to change the longer climate science remains in the crosshairs of the fact-free conservative punditocracy. According to science historian Spencer Weart, “we’ve never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers.”
To fight back, 40 scientists have come together to form the “climate rapid response team.” Led by Dr. John Abraham of St. Thomas University, the rapid response team is an informal group of scientists who have decided to put their spare time to use fielding media questions about climate science, and even going up against hostile anti-science audiences. Science Progress had the opportunity to catch up with Dr. Abraham on the phone earlier this week; what follows is excerpted from our interview with him. (Note that Dr. Abraham’s responses are paraphrased, except where marked with quotation marks.)
What is this the purpose of this rapid response effort?
Think of it as a matchmaking service to provide high-quality climate scientists from around the world to members of the media…Almost all of the scientists on our team are practicing climate scientists in academia.
Are you guys doing any training to prepare these scientists for potentially hostile media engagements?
No, we’re just aiming to deliver rapid, high-quality science information, in scientists’ own words.
Any worry that having climate scientists wade further into the political quagmire could politicize the issue further? Or even undermine the discipline? Or are we already past the point of no return?
You know this is something that climate scientists are always discussing—on a daily basis. Contrary to how we have been portrayed by some media stories, the purpose of our effort is not to politicize, it’s to provide highly accurate and timely information…We [scientists] are more comfortable staying in the ivory tower and discussing the science amongst ourselves, but we clearly need to get better at communicating to the public.
Why has climate science become so political? Why do you think conservatives are so skeptical, even hostile, toward climate science and those who practice it?
I think conservatives are more opposed to the solutions, rather than the science itself. That is to say, I think their ideological opposition to Big Government perhaps biases their view toward the science. Of course, the irony is that cap and trade has been used successfully to reduce smog for decades.
Is there still uncertainty in climate science?
Yes, but not about the basics. Whether or not the planet is warming, and whether human activity is driving that…these are not really up for debate anymore. Where there is still some uncertainty is over the degree, the rapidity, and the social reaction. We just don’t know what emissions path we are going to be on in the coming decades—whether humanity will get it together to reduce or not.
How are you going to communicate that uncertainty to people honestly? In a world where the conservative media has taken a very hard-line, anti-science stance that speaks often in terms of absolutes, how do you fight back without sinking to the same level?
A metaphor that I like to use when it comes to uncertainty and risk is the loaded revolver. Look, you’ve got a revolver. The more greenhouse gasses you put in the chamber, the higher the likelihood that your next shot is live…it’s a probability issue. Risk is something that our economic and political system deals with all the time.
Climate scientists didn’t ask for this attention. It just happens to be that climate science stands above other scientific disciplines in the severity of its implications for human destiny. Climate scientists didn’t charge headlong into the realm of politics with an ideological axe to grind. Rather, it was politicians and energy lobbyists that waded into the realm of climate science wielding a pro-fossil fuel agenda. So long as climate science remains so relevant to our politics, climate scientists have a moral obligation to defend their discipline from the kind of blatant misinformation that has dominated our news for the past 12 months.
Though some purists may hold to the belief that scientists should not wade into the quagmire of public opinion politics, Dr. Abraham has higher hopes for what his efforts could accomplish. “Deep in my heart I really wish there was some civility to this,” he shared as we were concluding our interview. “The vitriol that flies back and forth is not helpful. You will hear from me no vitriol. You’re not going to hear me demonizing anyone. You’re going to hear me communicating the science. If we can bring a civil but candid discussion to the media and the public—that is a success.”
This is cross-posted at Climate Progress. Sean Pool is assistant editor for Science Progress and Climate Progress. Ben Kaldunski also contributed invaluable research to this article.

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


US scientists to speak out on climate change

US scientists to speak out on climate change 


Agence France-Presse, November 9, 2010

WASHINGTON—Hundreds of US scientists are joining a mass effort to speak out on climate change, experts said Monday after skeptics gained political ground with last week's Republican wins in Congress.

The move signals a bold approach by scientists, typically reluctant to get involved in policy debates, as US President Barack Obama's efforts to install stricter penalties for polluters face a steep climb in the legislature.

One group of about 40 scientists has been mobilized as a "rapid response team" to dive into the often hostile media environment and refute misinformation about global warming, organizer John P. Abraham of the University of Minnesota told AFP.

Another group of 700 scientists who "have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution" was set to be announced later Monday by the American Geophysical Union, the Los Angeles Times said.

"To the extent that some members of the new majority in the House have exhibited a contrarianism to science, I think it is a good way to have a scientific community there to help keep its facts clear," said Princeton University scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who has signed on with both groups.

"I think it is important for scientists to assure that the public and policy makers have a clear view of what scientific findings are and what the implications of those findings are," he told AFP.

As many as half of the 100 new Republican members of Congress are skeptics of humans' role in climate change, according to a recent report by the left-wing think tank the Center for American Progress, cited by the LA Times.

Oppenheimer said the AGU's initiative, which does not expressly take a stance on climate change, predates by several months the latest congressional gains by Republicans who now control the House of Representatives.

Abraham also said his group was formed not because of Tuesday's gains by conservatives, but because there is a wide difference between what the majority of scientists accept as fact about climate change and what the American public believes.

"This is in response to a real disconnect between what is known in the scientific community and the consensus among the general public," he said.

"Ninety-seven percent of top scientists are in agreement, but the public is split about 50-50."

Link:  http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101109-302260/US-scientists-to-speak-out-on-climate-change

Written by fatih al-farahat in ,


The Guardian: US researchers fight to reclaim climate science message


US researchers fight to reclaim climate science message

Two initiatives will provide information for journalists as elections bring strong sceptic presence to new Congress

• Scientists have a duty to engage with the public on climate change
by Suzanne Goldenberg, U.S. environment correspondent, The Guardian, November 8, 2010

hacked climate science emails : A remote weather station on the edge of Lake Vanda




A remote weather station. Scientists have signed up to two new initiatives that aim to provide the media with accurate climate science information. Photograph: Cliff Leight/Getty Images

Hundreds of scientists have signed up to two new campaigns that seek to regain control of the message about climate science.
The two separate efforts come barely a week after midterm electionsproduced a new Congress that tilts strongly towards climate sceptics.
The American Geophysical Union (AGU), the leading climate science organisation, is due to launch a new web service offering journalists accurate scientific information about climate change. The AGU is also working on an iPhone app.
In a separate effort, scientists have recruited 40 colleagues for a "rapid response unit" whose members will give interviews or go on air to relay the science on climate change.
Those involved in both initiatives deny a political agenda, and say their projects were in the works before the Republicans took the house of representatives.
"AGU's climate science Q&A service addresses scientific questions only. It does not involve any commentary on policy," Peter Weiss a spokesman for the AGU said. "There is no campaign by AGU against climate sceptics or congressional conservatives."
But with the new conservative majority in Congress threatening to investigate climate scientists and to block the Obama administration from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, the effort will inevitably touch on politics, said John Abraham of St Thomas University in Minnesota.
"Our goal is not to become partisan. But if we are going to respond to denialists' claims which are unfounded in science then perhaps we are going to be viewed as going toe-to-toe with critics," he said.
The AGU initiative is a re-run of the service offered last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate change summit. This year, the project, which will be staffed by about 700 volunteers, is intended to run for two to three months.
The effort is a reflection of the enormous complexity of climate science and the difficulties of communicating with the public, said Katharine Hayhoe, a professor at Texas Tech University who is on the committee steering the AGU effort.
"You can't be an expert in one area and be able to understand all of climate science. It is such a complicated topic nowadays," she said. "What the AGU is trying to do, because it is the premier scientific organisation in this field, is to translate the very latest science into terms people can understand."
It is also an effort to overcome scientists' traditional reluctance to operate in the public arena.
Abraham set up the rapid response unit with Scott Mandia of Suffolk County Community College in New York, and Ray Weymann of Carnegie University. The three say they will serve as a conduit for media seeking contact with climate experts.
"The scientists I talk to are really scared. We are scared because we see a window for opportunity closing and it may be too late. I am not going to say the window is closing because of the election though. It's a physics problem," Abraham said. He has previously countered inaccuracies in lectures and congressional testimony from the Ukip deputy leader, Viscount Monckton.
News of the initiatives, first reported in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday, brought strong reaction from climate sceptic websites. "Bring it on!" said Climate Depot.
Democrats, especially those from coal states or the midwest, who voted for climate change bill in the house lost heavily in the elections. A majority of the Republican newcomers deny the existence of man-made climate change or oppose regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by Think Progress.
The new make-up of Congress has alarmed climate scientists such as Michael Mann, who have been targeted by sceptics. "There are legitimate uncertainties," Mann told a meeting of science writers at the weekend, "but unfortunately the public discourse right now is so far from scientific discourse."

Written by fatih al-farahat in


John Abraham: Scientists have a duty to engage with the public on climate change -- change -- Scientists have not been effective communicators, but it's time we made the effort to fight bad information


Scientists have a duty to engage with the public on climate change

Scientists have not been effective communicators, but it's time we made the effort to fight bad information

by John Abraham, The Guardian, November 8, 2010



US scientists unite against climate sceptics : Summer 2010 temperatures
Scientists have an obligation to engage with the public about climate change. Photograph: NASA

Two new campaigns have been launched by scientists that aim to improve the communication of climate science. One effort is the American Geophysical Union's 700 scientists who are on staff to answer questions centered around the Cancún climate conference. Another initiative is one that I am personally involved in, the formation of a "rapid response" team of scientists for media inquiries related to climate change. Scientists have not been effective communicators; these projects are our effort to get better.
The main motivation for forming the climate rapid response team is to provide high-quality information to the media and the public. Each year, the science supporting human-caused global warming gets stronger, as the consequences of climate change become more extreme. If we don't take meaningful action soon, we will be committed to significant environmental damage.
It is important for people to recognise that while this problem is complex,a lot is known about it. The vast majority of top climate scientists understand climate change is a serious threat – in fact, approximately 97% of the top climate scientists believe we have a problem. Though there is little disagreement, it is helpful to have scientists working to find fault in the science. However, the public should know that the handful of scientists who disagree have not, in more than 20 years, been able to find a major fault in the science, and they have not been able to propose an alternative explanation for the marked warming of this planet.
On the other hand, the general public and members of government are split on this issue. Half are concerned about global warming, half are not. Why is that? A major reason is that there is a great deal of bad information which typically germinates in the blogosphere and is created by people with little or no real expertise.
We know that solving this problem will require real effort. We are on a path to cause real destruction to our planet, and even if we were only interested in self-preservation we should take action.
We are also not naive in recognising that there is a political aspect to this. It is well known, at least in the United States, that conservatives tend to be much more sceptical about climate change than liberals. We need to move beyond partisanship toward co-operation. Conservatives care about the environment, too, and there have been many who have made comments about the need to act on climate change. History will look unkindly on those who have stood in the way of saving the planet, which will be an enormous political liability – although by then it will be too late to fix things.
The timing of these campaigns was not linked to the recent elections in the US The American Geophysical Union's effort coincides with the Cancún climate conference, a timing that is primarily motivated by a recognition that scientists have an obligation to defend the science and engage with the public.
We are both scientists and human beings. As scientists, we need to find ways to communicate accurate scientific information to a wider audience in a way that is policy-neutral. As humans, we are concerned not only for ourselves, but also for our children and for people in the world who don't have the necessary resources to adapt to the coming change. As a human, I have an obligation to speak up for them.
It is a shame that scientists have to take personal and professional risks in order to be good citizens of the planet. It doesn't have to be this way.
• John Abraham is associate professor in the school of engineering at the University of St Thomas in Minnesota