Lewandowsky and Cook's papers on Skeptics

[IanC]

It is a real shame that more people dont know the background of so many of these 97% consensus papers, and skeptics are either lying or crazy papers.

Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically, Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.

Mann rose to prominence by supposedly being able to detect “faint” signals using “advanced” statistical methods. Lewandowsky has taken this to a new level: using lew-statistics, lew-scientists can deduce properties of population with no members. Josh summarizes the zen of lew-statistics as follows:

Lots of blogs helping John Cook out here, especially Lucia and Brandon over at The Blackboard where Brandon has just discovered that the survey of 12,000 papers, is, in fact, not a survey of 12,000 papers but a selection of papers based on John’s own idea of which should be chosen. Wow.

not about Lew and Cook but it is too funny to pass up

 

[mamooth]

Cool, Cook derangement syndrome. If someone has got the denialists this flustered, that's a sign they've scored a bullseye.

I think the funniest thing is how the funny-cartoon makers here rail about how solar physicist John Cook is actually a "cartoonist", because he does a little cartooning as a hobby. That is, they deliberately lie about him. If you can't refute the work, I guess throwing slurs at the author is the only option left, given that honesty seems not to be an option for most denialists.

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

 

[Abraham3]

Ian? You out there? Got anything?

 

[skookerasbil]

they don't care

 

[westwall]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

I liked this appraisal of Oreskes' last book.....

For all these reasons I think this is a problematic book. It is disappointing to see professional historians reduce the complexity to a black and white affair where it goes without saying what the preferred colour is. The social science literature relevant to the understanding of policymaking in the face of uncertainty is largely absent. The authors mention just one study, about rational decision theory, which is probably cited because it supports the authors claim that scientific uncertainty helps to prevent or delay political action. They missed the opportunity to confront their historical material with approaches that have examined the same case studies but did not come to the same conclusions. Reading Merchants of Doubt gives the impression that no such work exists. This raises the question of what epistemological status it can claim. Its authors have been critical of the scientific credentials of the contrarians, quoting the lack of peer review or selective use of information. This book has all the hallmarks of science (there are many footnotes) and perhaps it was even peer-reviewed. But it is what the title and subtitle suggest: less a scholarly work than a passionate attack on a group of scientists turned lobbyists and thus itself a partial account. I wonder if it does not do a disservice to the cause it is advocating.


Debunking skeptical propaganda, Book review of Oreskes/Conway, Merchants of Doubt | Reiner Grundmann - Academia.edu


All of the propagandists you think so highly of are likewise challenged. Nice to know the type of crap science you follow though.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

Nutticielli is a propagandist with a penchant for lying.. And Harris and Gallup are not credible on asking highly technical questions. HOWEVER -- I highly respect von Storch.. Who appears to actually have a reverence for the ethics of science.. However his poll was in 2008 -- WELL BEFORE he became aware and concerned about the magnitude of manipulation and fraud in the C.Science community (as are MOST of your references well before the CRU email releases).. So HIS study is no longer valid and DID NOT come to a 97% consensus on the critical questions..

Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

By HANS VON STORCH
"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.


We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent.

And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes, skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.

 

[elektra]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

You cut/paste like you could actually know what these professors study? You have no idea what these people even did?

Take Sarah A. Greene, she just says the scientist who are trying to prove humans cause Global Warming already believe we cause AGW.

so, what is the point of posting something when you are ignorant of the work of the people on your list?

 

[westwall]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

Nutticielli is a propagandist with a penchant for lying.. And Harris and Gallup are not credible on asking highly technical questions. HOWEVER -- I highly respect von Storch.. Who appears to actually have a reverence for the ethics of science.. However his poll was in 2008 -- WELL BEFORE he became aware and concerned about the magnitude of manipulation and fraud in the C.Science community (as are MOST of your references well before the CRU email releases).. So HIS study is no longer valid and DID NOT come to a 97% consensus on the critical questions..

Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

By HANS VON STORCH
"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.


We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent.

And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes, skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.

Good catch flacaltenn. I had forgotten that he was actually a decent, ethical scientist. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[IanC]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

Nutticielli is a propagandist with a penchant for lying.. And Harris and Gallup are not credible on asking highly technical questions. HOWEVER -- I highly respect von Storch.. Who appears to actually have a reverence for the ethics of science.. However his poll was in 2008 -- WELL BEFORE he became aware and concerned about the magnitude of manipulation and fraud in the C.Science community (as are MOST of your references well before the CRU email releases).. So HIS study is no longer valid and DID NOT come to a 97% consensus on the critical questions..

Hans Von Storch: Good Science, Bad Politics - WSJ.com

By HANS VON STORCH
"Frankly, he's an odd individual," a well-known climatologist wrote about me in a private e-mail to a friend in the U.K. On this, we agree—I am an odd individual, if by that we mean a climatologist whose e-mails would not document a contempt for such basic scientific virtues such as openness, falsifiability, replicability and independent review.


We—society and climate researchers—need to discuss now what constitutes "good science." Some think good science is a societal institution that produces results that serve an ideology. Take, for instance, the counsel that then-Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave to scientists at a climate change conference in March, as transcribed by Environmental Research Letters: "I would give you the piece of advice, not to provide us with too many moving targets, because it is already a very, very complicated process. And I need your assistance to push this process in the right direction, and in that respect, I need fixed targets and certain figures, and not too many considerations on uncertainty and risk and things like that."

I do not share that view. For me, good science means generating knowledge through a superior method, the scientific method. The merits of a scientifically constructed result do not depend on its utility for any politician's agenda. Indeed, the utility of my results is not my business, and the contextualization of my results should not depend on my personal preferences. It is up to democratic societies to decide how to use or not use my insights and explanations.

I am told that I should keep my mouth shut, that criticizing colleagues is not "tactful," and will damage the reputation of science—even when the CRU e-mails have already sunk that ship. I hear that the now-notorious "trick" is normal, that to "hide the decline" is just an unfortunate colloquialism. But we know by now that the activity described by these words was by no means innocent.

And what of the alarmists' kin, the skeptics? They say these words show that everything was a hoax—not just the historical temperature results in question, but also the warming documented by different groups using thermometer data. They conclude I must have been forced out of my position as chief editor of the journal Climate Research back in 2003 for my allegiance to science over politics. In fact, I left this post on my own, with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper—a skeptic's paper, at that. But in 2006 I urged a CRU scientist to make his data public for critics and, yes, skeptics—as documented in one of the stolen e-mails.

the Von Storch poll was quite illuminating, as opposed to some of the others. it stretched out the continuum of skeptic>alarmist into shades of gray rather than leaving it as black/white yes/no question. the truth is that the vast majority skeptics and alarmists both believe in the basic science but one side rejects unfounded predictions of doom because those conclusions are simply conjecture not fact.

professor of physics J Jones of Oxford has produced yet another insightful comment on the climate change wars-

It has been amusing to watch the apparent surprise of many climate scientists at their discovery that many “climate sceptics” are actually lukewarmers. Taking a rough and ready definition, that lukewarmers believe in AGW but doubt catastrophic AGW, one could reasonably place many of the more famous sceptics (Liljegren, McIntyre implicitly, Montford, Watts explicitly) in that camp, together with a number of “maverick” climate scientists (Curry, Lewis, Lindzen).

What does not follow from this, however, is Ed’s suggestion that “the debate can crucially move on to what action is needed to deal with a warming planet”. Or to be more precise that is, as it always has been, a reasonable question, but a perfectly reasonable answer at the moment would be “little or nothing”. Many lukewarmers are also “policy sceptics”, and their view that current policy responses are hopelessly ineffective, with costs far exceeding any conceivable benefits, remains unchanged.

And straying briefly into more dangerous territory, lukewarmers can and do remain highly critical of the IPCC, the hockey stick, the climategate fiasco, the Lewandowsky nonsense, and the bizarre idea that sceptics are a bunch of “fossil fuel funded deniers”. True peace in our time requires mainstream climate science to acknowledge a few uncomfortable truths.

 

[IanC]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

the cartoons are simply shorthand to jog people's memory of past fiascos. I am not here to 'teach' anyone. Lewandowsky's first paper was a travesty, compounded with an equally bad second paper, and cemented into idiocy by his blog comments making correlations and connections with no relevant data!.

I expect people to be fairly well informed if they post on this forum, especially if they post 20 comments a day. I must admit I am often disappointed.

What was your opinion on the Lew&Cook moon hoax paper? I expect that you lapped it up when it came out. What about when legitimate criticism after legitimate criticism was leveled? Did it bother you that people who you trusted lied to your face? squirmed, distorted, and doubled down on their idiocy? do you still hold them in the same esteem? hahahahaha, sure you do!

 

[Abraham3]

If you want to cast doubt on whether or not the vast majority of actual climate scientists (as opposed to Canadian oil field workers or America's TV weathermen) believe that the world is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate and/or to cast doubt on whether or not a vast majority of actual climate scientists believe that our deforestation and our use of fossil fuels are the primary cause of that warming, you have a great long ways to go.

These last comments are almost meaningless and that should be obvious to you. The truth is the reason that all those various polls and surveys and studies come up with very similar numbers is that those numbers are an accurate reflection of reality in this regard. AGW is accepted science. By rejecting it, you have placed yourself on the outside; with the Flat Earthers, the Luddites and the Conspiracy Nuts. Your choice Ian.

 

[IanC]

If you want to cast doubt on whether or not the vast majority of actual climate scientists (as opposed to Canadian oil field workers or America's TV weathermen) believe that the world is getting warmer at an unprecedented rate and/or to cast doubt on whether or not a vast majority of actual climate scientists believe that our deforestation and our use of fossil fuels are the primary cause of that warming, you have a great long ways to go.

These last comments are almost meaningless and that should be obvious to you. The truth is the reason that all those various polls and surveys and studies come up with very similar numbers is that those numbers are an accurate reflection of reality in this regard. AGW is accepted science. By rejecting it, you have placed yourself on the outside; with the Flat Earthers, the Luddites and the Conspiracy Nuts. Your choice Ian.

you are deflecting from the topic. when lewandowsky and Cook got caught for using very inappropriate methods to do a hachet job on skeptics they then obfuscated.

is your trust and esteem for Cook and his blog SkepticalScience damaged or not? I dont actually care but I know that personally I think less of a person when they lie to me to save face.

 

[IanC]

Cool, Cook derangement syndrome. If someone has got the denialists this flustered, that's a sign they've scored a bullseye.

I think the funniest thing is how the funny-cartoon makers here rail about how solar physicist John Cook is actually a "cartoonist", because he does a little cartooning as a hobby. That is, they deliberately lie about him. If you can't refute the work, I guess throwing slurs at the author is the only option left, given that honesty seems not to be an option for most denialists.

 

[flacaltenn]

Nutticielli is a propagandist with a penchant for lying.. And Harris and Gallup are not credible on asking highly technical questions. HOWEVER -- I highly respect von Storch.. Who appears to actually have a reverence for the ethics of science.. However his poll was in 2008 -- WELL BEFORE he became aware and concerned about the magnitude of manipulation and fraud in the C.Science community (as are MOST of your references well before the CRU email releases).. So HIS study is no longer valid and DID NOT come to a 97% consensus on the critical questions..

the Von Storch poll was quite illuminating, as opposed to some of the others. it stretched out the continuum of skeptic>alarmist into shades of gray rather than leaving it as black/white yes/no question. the truth is that the vast majority skeptics and alarmists both believe in the basic science but one side rejects unfounded predictions of doom because those conclusions are simply conjecture not fact.

professor of physics J Jones of Oxford has produced yet another insightful comment on the climate change wars-

It has been amusing to watch the apparent surprise of many climate scientists at their discovery that many “climate sceptics” are actually lukewarmers. Taking a rough and ready definition, that lukewarmers believe in AGW but doubt catastrophic AGW, one could reasonably place many of the more famous sceptics (Liljegren, McIntyre implicitly, Montford, Watts explicitly) in that camp, together with a number of “maverick” climate scientists (Curry, Lewis, Lindzen).

What does not follow from this, however, is Ed’s suggestion that “the debate can crucially move on to what action is needed to deal with a warming planet”. Or to be more precise that is, as it always has been, a reasonable question, but a perfectly reasonable answer at the moment would be “little or nothing”. Many lukewarmers are also “policy sceptics”, and their view that current policy responses are hopelessly ineffective, with costs far exceeding any conceivable benefits, remains unchanged.

And straying briefly into more dangerous territory, lukewarmers can and do remain highly critical of the IPCC, the hockey stick, the climategate fiasco, the Lewandowsky nonsense, and the bizarre idea that sceptics are a bunch of “fossil fuel funded deniers”. True peace in our time requires mainstream climate science to acknowledge a few uncomfortable truths.

Whoooa.. That's a scorcher.. von Storch had his heart ripped out about Science ethics both with his confrontations with the IPCC and the Email controversy he got dragged into. I pretty much guarantee that he regrets being part of ANY consensus polling now. Which maybe why the poll was never formally published. But yeah, the raw results were well done and does some illumination of the type of questions that SHOULD BE asked.

 

[Abraham3]

A quote from Dr von Storch:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

 

[westwall]

A quote from Dr von Storch:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

From when?

 

[Abraham3]

von Storch, Hans. "Statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce, July 19, 2006 Hearing "Questions Surrounding the ‘Hockey Stick’ Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments"". Retrieved 6 August 2010.

 

[mamooth]

I don't have to ask where these conspiracy theories come from. Whenever you see paranoid ravings about Lewandowsky and Cook, it always originates with DearLeaderMcIntyre and his merry cult.

Here's one of my favorite McIntyre meltdowns, in the comments of ClimateAudit thread relating to this topic.

The SkS ?Link? to the Lewandowsky Survey « Climate Audit

There was a misconfigured something someplace between North America and Australia, so the Skeptical Science website in Australia was unavailable to some people for a few hours. Upon not being able to access the website of the man he defines as his arch-nemesis, McIntyre thus declared his IP was deliberately being blocked (he did retract the claim 7 hours later). And all the McIntyre fans instantly chimed in to agree with their DearLeader, many of them compounding the conspiracy to claim that the diabolical Cook was deliberately taking the site offline just so he could later say McIntyre and friends were paranoid.

That's why no one pays attention to McIntyre. Because he's nuts.

 

[flacaltenn]

A quote from Dr von Storch:

"Based on the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

So what?? I believe the same thing. But the potential effect is minimally important or interesting... To Wit.. Dr. V.S. also has said..

Five Differing Viewpoints on Climate Change | Intelligent Utility

The SUPPORTER: Hans von Storch has served as Lead Author on the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Professor at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Hamburg and on the advisory boards of the Journal of Climate and Annals of Geophysics. Von Storch has taken the position that, “Based upon the scientific evidence, I am convinced that we are facing anthropogenic climate change brought about by the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
However, in Der Spiegel, Von Storch says, “Scientific research faces a crisis because its public figures are overselling the issues to gain attention in a hotly contested market for newsworthy information...The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad, and that overselling it a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad.”

That could have been a FCT quote right there.. As for OBJECTIVITY -- the guy gets points..

Nieman Reports | Culture Contributes to Perceptions of Climate Change


Among mainstream climate scientists, there is little doubt that climate is changing significantly faster today than in the historical past. As a consequence of this “detection,” they conclude that there must be nonnatural factors at work. When different external factors are considered as possible causes, the most consistent explanation attributes two-thirds of 20th-century’s warming to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, while the other third is ascribed to the sun’s changing output. While broad scientific consensus asserts that rising temperatures are a result of human emissions, a similar conclusion has not been drawn about anthropogenic changes in other weather phenomena such as windstorms in the tropics or at mid latitudes. Recently, a number of claims about worsening hurricane intensity have been made. However, the hurricane statistics vary on time scales of a few decades; the data describing the significant upward trend cover just the last 30 to 40 years, with a lull commencing in the 1970’s after an active period in the 1940’s and 50’s. Thus the conclusion of an anthropogenic signal is methodologically premature.

Climate change is not only a topic in the inner circles of climate researchers but also in the public domain. The interplay between climate research and the public sphere—the public demand for explanation and advice about how to cope with climate change—is one of the key constraints on current climate research. Given prevailing uncertainty about the scientific facts on the one side and the high stakes for the public on the other, climate science is now a contested field. And it emerges as exemplary of what some social scientists call postnormal science.

PostNormal science bugs a LOT of people. Shouldn't EVER let that chapter open...