Blog #2: A roadmap through the jungle.

In our process through the pandemic, we saw how easily misinformation spreads and is able to convince some people. There has been a lot of recent psychological research establishing that “polarized individuals may simply be less good at considering evidence contrary to their own views, and are more apt to swiftly disregard the opinions of their opponents.” Which is another way of saying that people sort themselves into tribes, and dig in when their tribe is threatened. I run into climate deniers all the time. My usual response, diplomat that I am, is to yell “How can you be so G-D stupid?” This is usually ineffective. What seems to help, in some cases, is to give people a set of tools that will help them dig out information, to separate fact from fiction. The disinformation that so roiled our society during the pandemic was not well funded, compared to the firehose of bullshit funded by Big Oil. More on this in a later blog post, maybe, but for now: although much of the money is hidden from view, estimates are that the amount Big Oil spends on disinformation is about the same as the advertising on beer: billions.

To counteract the influence of all this fossil fuel propaganda, we need to give people the tools to see behind the screen, to suss out the truth. That’s much more effective than me just yelling at them. So let’s start arming people so they can tell good science from bullshit.

The first thing to understand is: all science depends on the scientific literature. When we have some results we think are worth it, we write them up in a “manuscript” (because it’s not yet a paper), and send it to a journal. There are many grades of journals, from the outstanding (Science and Nature) to the mediocre. There has also arisen a class called Predatory Journals, which will print any old crap as long as they are paid. The best journals have been around for years, and are mostly published by professional societies. When a journal gets a manuscript it sends it out to reviewers, generally 2-3, with expertise in the field. Their job, to be blunt, is to tear the thing apart. The reviewers send their reports (Reject, Reject with Minor Revisions, Reject with Major Revisions) back to the Editor. Most manuscripts require some revision, some are rejected outright.

The system is far from perfect. Reviewers have prejudices, as do Editors. But at least if a paper appears in a real journal, then you have the confidence of knowing it has passed a minimal level of scrutiny. There is no quality control on Youtube videos or websites. If a large number of papers come to the same conclusion, then it’s reasonable to bet that it’s the correct one. Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick” temperature reconstruction has come in for a pile of attacks, but over the ensuing decades, the results have been verified by about 6 other research groups.

So here’s Rule #1: always check the refereed literature. An excellent source here would be Google Scholar. There are other compendia, such as the Web of Science, but those are usually behind paywalls.

Rule #2: always check the person. If someone tells you “Trust me, I am a climate scientist” and then says something a tad hinky-check them out. Google Scholar will bring up every paper they have ever written. There may well be some revelations. Then check their support. You can find a list pf prominent deniers, and their sources of support, at DeSmog. There are also a whole raft of fossil-fuel funded websites with wonderful-sounding names, and base motives, such as

Friends of Science (who could be AGAINST science?)

American Enterprise Inst

Cato Inst

Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Climate Change

Global Climate Coalition

Prager U (which isn’t a university)

Principia Scientific

…and on and on. There are hundreds of these. They are all fronts for Big Oil. Use the resources at DeSmog, Skeptical Science and Sourcewatch to follow the money. When you find Heartland Inst, Koch Industries, or any of the other hinky funding sources, you know you are not dealing with people who have your best interests at heart.

The Americans have 1000’s of paid shills, as befits the size of their fossil fuel industry. Again, you can find out someone’s cred, using the resources above. Some are sort of funny. President Trump picked Dr. William Happer, an Emeritus Prof at Princeton, to be on his National Security Council. He got caught in a Greenpeace sting, offering to write puff pieces for coal companies. He charged $250/hr.

Not to be outdone, Canada has its own share of shills.

Tim Ball has a PhD in geomorphology (the study of landforms), has never published any climate science, is funded by Heartland-and is cited by the CCP as a science advisor.

Tom Harris is an engineer who got started writing copy for cigarette companies. He has then gone on to be an articulate denier, often seen in the National Post. Never published any climate science.

Susan Crockford is a BC biologist who can always be counted on to say the polar bears are doing just fine. Problem is-you guessed it-her speciality is dogs, and she has never, ever, published a paper on polar bears.

You get the picture. We are dealing with a firehose of disinformation, funded by the largest commercial entity the planet has ever known. We need a roadmap to help us through the fog.

There are some good sites. Realclimate is run by real climate scientists, and is not too technical. Sou’s HotWhopper is a wonderful site, characterized by her acerbic humour. She seems to have gone dark for a while-we all hope to see her up and posting again, but in the meantime I direct you to her archives. Peter Sinclair does Climate Denial Crock of the Week, and is always interesting. A couple of others I find interesting are Open Mind, and And Then There’s Physics. Then of course there are the data-rich sites run by governments, such as those by NOAA, NSIDC, Danish Met Survey, British Met Survey. Etc. None of these takes any money from industry, which leads me to

Rule #3: follow the money. Always dig down to see who is funding what you are reading. You will be amazed, and very depressed, by the crap that’s out there.

Which leads me to a good time to wrap up this post. I hope I have convinced you to trust the science. We could all make far more money shilling for oil than we could writing blogs, so it’s just dumb to even begin to think that this “climate hysteria” has all been cooked up by the world’s scientists so they could make more money. There are tools you can use to navigate the labyrinth out there. Use them. Remember:

-check the literature

-check the person

-follow the money.

Mike Risk Mar8/22