Do you read climate science papers critically?

Question

From reading questions and answers here, it seems most skeptics read actual climate literature with a critical mindset, thinking that whatever is discussed is untrue, or at least intentionally misleading. This attitude, I think, frees them from having to think about the material they are reading from the attitude of trying to understand why it is correct. In contrast, they read material from skeptics with a much less critical attitude, thinking the work from "professional" skeptics is correct without analyzing it critically to see if it is consistent with known physics. Do you think it would make a difference if skeptics went back to the basics and read the underlying science again with a less critical attitude, trying to understand it as being correct to see why so many climate scientists are convinced by the theory?

For example, rather than think that the NAS panel is lying about temperature reconstructions, go back and really read the document and try to understand the differences and distinctions between the Medieval Warm Period and what is going on today. Another good example is Trenberth's radiative balance paper. It's complicated, but taking the time to go through it really illustrates how radiative transfer works, and what radiative balance means. Radiative transfer through inhomogeneous atmospheres would be a good place to start too, but there isn't one seminal reference you could point to, since the theory was developed over many years.

Answer 1

I try to read science with an open mind. Generally, if something has passed peer-review I take it as a signal that there's no a priori reason to be hypercritical. On the other hand, when it's a topic I know something about, I can generally tell pretty quickly if the paper is worthwhile or not.

Answer 2

Your question seems aimed at the skeptics, so anything put forward on my part is mere conjecture.  But first and foremost I am reluctant to lump together this entire group as to how papers are read.

That said, many so-called skeptics here are in deep denial. It is impossible to read many of the science papers and dismiss the methods & the math based on distrust of government, and the outcome, if you have read the paper critically.  I think as far as reading denialist material, it comes recommended and scrutinized, and is accepted more readily.  But: if you had the "skeptic" in the room and walked him/her through a paper, going over key points step by step, I think a discussion and pointed questions would overcome a genuine skeptic.

I have read many a scientific paper, some more critically than others.  I've gone to conferences where these papers have life breathed into them when  a presentation is given by the writer, and questions asked, then answered. But a hardcore denier isn't going to give a scientific paper the respect it deserves.  

Good question, but as much as some of us would like to pin down the particulars on how skeptics can be skeptics, I don't think we'll ever fully know.

Answer 3

Did you know that Hitler was an environmentalist??

He wanted engines to run on water. He put the earth and animals above human beings. Sound familiar to todays times.  

Answer 4

whenever i read papers (which is rare; scientific papers are b-o-r-i-n-g) i consider everything before forming a thoughtful opinion

Answer 5

I certainly try to.  For example, it's important not just to consider the conclusion of a paper, but the certainty of that conclusion.

One recent example was the cosmic ray Forbush event paper you linked.  While it didn't find any significant correlation between cosmic rays and cloud formation, the paper did make the point that they couldn't conclusively rule out some degree of correlation, and further study would be required.  Another important example is the Douglass, Singer, Christy et. al paper where they discussed the apparent lack of tropospheric warming, but essentially neglected the uncertainty in the radiosonde data.  Reading that paper with a critical eye makes it very unconvincing.

Your proposal that the 'skeptics' read the NAS 'hockey stick' paper and other studies would require the 'skeptics' to have an open mind and read the papers without allowing their preconceived notions to interfere.  I don't think that's possible for most 'skeptics'.  And frankly, let's be honest - most 'skeptics' don't read climate science papers to begin with.

alm0st - if a scientist claimed gravity was a myth without providing solid physics calculations to support that claim, he would not even pass peer-review.

What am I wrong about?  You didn't even address my point about peer-review.  And if I were wrong about AGW, I would be thrilled.

Answer 6

No I  don't read them with a critical eye! I do however read them knowledgeably and comprehensively. I reserve my judgment after I do my own research on the sources cited or data presented...if it is warranted.  

I am surprised by Dana's answer....

Answer 7

Of course I do, and that includes skeptical literature.

"Another important example is the Douglass, Singer, Christy et. al paper where they discussed the apparent lack of tropospheric warming, but completely neglected the uncertainty in the radiosonde data."

They did not neglect the uncertainty in the radiosonde data at all, and if you had actually read the paper and the addendum you would know this.

Answer 8

I'm embarrased to say I'm just an empiricist who needs little more than to look out the window at the smoking heap of c**p we are creating.

Then I read the peer-reviewed science to the best of my ability and it aligns nicely with my observations.  

The exact cause, mechanism and how that leads to a predicted outcome may remain a mystery to me because I lack a real foundation in hard science, and I know that these things may change with the course of the science, but that doesn't change the fact that general idea aligns with my observation.

There comes a point where anecodotal evidence is enough to warrant action, even if the science is not definitive.

It's just common sense.  Do we need to prove that we have destroyed the world to five decimal places before we take a look around and start to do something about it?  

Or how about just stopping what we are doing, taking a step back and considering the situation before we continue to forge blindly ahead?

The "interesting" part to me is how they can at the same time look out the window, ignore the legitimate science, put faith in cranks, and rationalize the whole sordid mess.

Answer 9

I don't think it's necessarily a skeptic/proponent issue. We all bring our biases into our reading. Some are better at setting them aside than others, on both sides of the issue.

Answer 10

frankly, from the level of knowledge displayed here, i think your assumption that they read is incorrect.

keep in mind, they quote foxnews and rush limbaugh.

if they read anything at all, it's likely something that they recommended.

there's no way that they could have read anything that seriously supports global warming, and taken from it that it may not be true.

in the time i've read and replied here, and even before, i've really only found a couple folks that have an honest handle that post anything like reasonable arguments that attempt to refute climate change / warming.

the ones that i find least knowledgeable are those that claim "i do my own research", or "do your own research".  invariably, the arguments they present are just wrong.

Answer 11

The problem with scientific papers is that you need a good understanding of the topic to be able to critically analyze them.

In the past after reading news stories i have read papers from areas of science that i lack a decent understanding of . I would not be able to make a critical analysis of them but should able to determine how well the research has been represented by the media.

On the other hand i was given an assignment that involved looking through a large number of scientific papers which proposed conflicting ideas and making a commentary on them. A decent background knowledge is essential to be able to make that sort of analysis. That is, you can't work it out as you go along or use 'gut instinct'.

As for the mindset of people who ignore/ refuse to acknowledge scientific papers, their motivation seems to be more emotional then academic.

Answer 12

here is the thing- in the last fifty years our technology has exploded into things that we wouldn't have ever believed of happening 150 years ago. for example-man walked on the moon, man can fly-without crashing too often, man can stop diseases from happening to them by a simple needle and medicine. advancements in technology is the problem. we are just on the tip of the iceberg at realizing our earth's heating and cooling cycle. and in the midieval times they didnt have near the technology we have now to detect the earths OVERALL tempurature.

   when you say that "...so many climate scentists are convinced by the theory", there is a big problem there! science is not consensus. if it was, the earth would still be flat and the sun would be revolving around it. the little dirty truth is not what they are telling you, but what thier motives are. Al Gore, Scientists, and other hypocrites are truly in this whole "movement" for the money. i am not looking at the global warming critically, i believe it! but i also think that the world will also cool down again.  we can see if i am right in another fifty years. and there is a seminal reference i can point to. in England, in the 1700's, there was a bunch of vineyards. because it was a warm climate-warm enough to grow grapes. in england today it is very tough and almost impossible to grow grapes because the climate is actually cooler and wetter than what it was back then. that is legitament proof for me.

- ps- look at who you get your information from and how they are telling it to you and exactly why they are telling it to you before you start critisisn' other people for what they believe is true. look behind the major speakers and see what thier past is- like Al Gore. and im tired of typing i could go on and on about this but it would take forevor.  

Answer 13

I don't think their deliberately lying, I just feel for some reason they have their minds set on a certain outcome, so they have their own blinders on for other possibilities.  When I have time I have read through a lot of their papers with an open mind. I guess that's why I find it odd that people aren't more skeptical about their results. To just say they have all the answers about past climate changes, when they weren't living back than to experience it for themselves, is... just wrong.

Edit: Amy - Don't worry he'll pick an answer from a believer based on how much that believer critized the skeptics.

Edit: gcnp58 - Sorry about the jaded comment to Amy, it's just that I've seen others ask these types of questions and the best answer went to someone that cut the skeptics down.

Answer 14

I read all scientific papers with a degree of healthy skepticism, which everyone should do...the problem is that climatologists and the associated 'scientists' who are pro AGW, have taken emperical raw data, 'analyzed' it, formed a theory for AGW, and left it at that, without taking the obvious step of designing a study, preferably double blind, and doing the laboratory exercises, and publishing the results, with the associated peer review...the NAS makes a pathetic attempt to explain away the  so called 'medieval warm period', without explaining it...because, they cannot, other than the obvious, that this was a normal part of climate change, which is going on all of the time-of course if that obvious explanation is accepted, then the same might be said of the current warm period, which of course, would not fit their agenda....Kiehl and Trenberth just described what they understood to be the relationship of the sun on the different parts of the earth-I did not find it that difficult to understand, however, their model is just that, a model.  It has been changed about 30 times that I know of personally, and undoubtedly it will be changed again, depending upon new data.  You implication that those of us who you refer to as 'deniers' simply do not understand the 'science', is without basis in fact...you should really rethink your abject acceptance of a theory, which just happens to fit the agenda of the liberal/left/greenie/envirocrats...good question, thanks for asking...

Answer 15

Yes.  Some people are trustworthy and some are not.  That goes for scientists as well.  If 1,000 scientists told me that gravity is a myth and had tons of peer-reviewed papers to back it up with the math worked out exactly, it would be pretty difficult for me to swallow.  When the h**l did critical and more importantly INDEPENDENT thinking become a sin in climate science??

gc, you clearly are very insightful, knowledgable and rational about this issue.  Do you believe there is a crisis?  How much control can humans possibly have over the greenhouse effect (1.6 W/m2 vs. 350 W/m2, from my highly unscientific fish tank in another post).

Why is the greenhouse effect naturally limited to it's current value?  What are it's natural range & bounds?  I don't believe for a second that it's a physical constant.  Why do you trust these models so much?  Have you ever seen scientist group-think before?  It happens because of HUMAN NATURE - and scientists despite their valuable and unique gifts are STILL HUMAN.

The # of climate scientists who believe the theory doesn't convince me it's accurate - and it shouldn't convince you either!

It's the dire predictions of catastrophe and CERTAINTY in the necessity for immediate action that make climate scientists highly suspect, and makes non-scientists very, very skeptical.

I look at past temperature records and how wildly things fluctuate and it's difficult for me to think that the Earth has a static or constant energy balance.  

I wouldn't quite say the NAS is lying.  I just don't see the crisis.

Dana - you are flat out wrong.  You are the one with a lot to lose if there is no crisis.  You have biases just like everyone else.  There you go again, writing off anyone who doesn't buy the crisis.

EDIT: Dana, I think you're wrong about the crisis - you seem to really expect food & water disasters, and a variety of other things caused by humanity.  I don't expect that.  I am NOT a climate scientist.  I don't know ANYTHING about radiative transfer & equilibrium.  I just cannot reasonably believe that 1.6 W/m2 creates an imbalance that the climate & weather systems are incapable of dealing with.  

linly - you would do well to read some Gödel and what he proved about the incompleteness of mathematics.

Answer 16

But Dana it was evaluating the hockey stick paper that first convinced me it was all a fraud. Up until then I was not convinced, but willing to listen. After going through it I found it obvious there was either a serious bug in the program or a serious fault in the data stream fed into it. Turns out that in the long run both problems existed in the paper. There was and still is a built in bug that knocks off any earlier data point that exceeds the base tuning value. And then over half the stations whose data was included were victims of urban sprawl and were now in locations and conditions that increased their reported temperatures over ambient.

Answer 17

Of course you're right.  But we all tend to be more critical of ideas that disagree with our own.  It takes a steady accumulation of evidence before people will change their minds, and fortunately, that is happening.  But in the end it doesn't really matter if every last person is convinced.  As long as enough of the key people act to change things, the stragglers won't matter.

Answer 18

You're supposed to read all technical papers critically, are you not?  If you don't take everything with a grain of salt to begin with, you'll have no idea what you think the moment you read two papers about the same topic that reach opposite conclusions.  The idea is to look for holes in everything first, and then go with it if the methods seem sound.

I'd never get anywhere if I took everything I read related to my dissertation topic (not climate science, though) at face value.  Half the people don't agree with what the other half are saying sometimes.