Quantitative debunking of the fallacy of balance in the global warming `debate'
Inspired by a recent post by Laurie David, and the Al Gore documentary An Inconvenient Truth I got inspired to put a little quantitative heft behind the comparison of climate skeptics to the mainstream climate scientists for whom there is an overwhelming consensus that global warming due to us is going on and must be attended to soon if we want to change things.
The basic issue is that you have order 2-3000 climate scientists of repute worldwide who are behind the global warming consensus, and a literal handful (Richard Lindzen of MIT, Robert Balling of Arizona State, Sallie Baliunas of Harvard, S. Fred Singer of Virginia and George Mason, Pat Michaels of Virginia) who the media has consistently sought out for ``balance'' over the years. To a person, these folks have fossil fuel based funding. You can say that need not bias them, but it is eerily reminiscent of the way big tobacco funded health research.
Now, there is no question that Lindzen has stature-he is, deservedly for the body of work, a member of the National Academy of Science. Baliunas also has stature-but primarily in astronomy research, not climate research.
How to compare to people like Ben Santer and Tom Wigley of Lawrence Livermore Labs, or Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric research in Boulder, who are three of the most notable mainstream climate scientists? A quick pass is provided by the WEb of Science/Citation Index. This counts citations to papers written by given authors, which is an imperfect but legitimate measure of impact. The more a paper is cited, the more that is evidence that this paper has been important. This idea is similar to the way Google ranks sites based upon links. The first pass searching here may miss some citations and papers, but with the same methodology for all the systematic bias should be similar.
This is a well known database in the scientific community, and any good science journalist can and should use it. I have no idea if they do.
What do you measure? Well, total numbers of papers indicates overall productivity. Typical strong scientists in any field produce a minimum of 3-5 per year. A really good scientist should have had at least one or more hits--papers that got several hundred citations a piece. But you can get lucky-sustained impact is measured by the citations per paper, which should be in the 20-30 range at minimum for a strong scientist, and the number of citations per year. This will grow for older scientists if they remain impactful.
Here are some results:
Mainstream side:
Santer: Total papers on Web of Science: 49
Highest cited: 321
Total citations: 1302
Cites per year since PhD (1988): 72
Cites per paper 27
Wigley: Total papers on Web of Science: 160
Highest cited single paper: 420
Total citations: 5129
Cites per year since PhD (1967) 131
Cites per paper 32
Trenberth: Total papers on Web of Science 147
Highest Cited single paper 669
Total citations 5155
Cites per year since Phd (1972) 152
Cites per paper 35
Now, on the skeptic side:
Lindzen: Total papers on Web of Science 187
Highest Cited single paper 860
Total citations 4878
Cites per year since Phd (1972) 116
Cites per paper 26
Michaels : Total papers on Web of Science 52
Highest Cited single paper 24
Total citations 280
Cites per year since Phd (1973) 8
Cites per paper 5
Singer: Total papers on Web of Science 263
Highest Cited single paper 88
Total citations 1401
Cites per year since Phd (1948) 24
Cites per paper 5
Balling: Total papers on Web of Science 118
Highest Cited single paper 59
Total citations 760
Cites per year since Phd (1972) 28
Cites per paper 6
Baliunas: Total papers on Web of Science 79
Highest Cited single paper 535
Total citations 2463
Cites per year since Phd (1979) 91
Cites per paper 31
Climate papers only-9 total, highest
cited-32, total cites 116.
So what do we take from this?
Well, just taking three of the better known but in no way atypical mainstream climate scientists worried about warming, we see that they are al really good by these measures. Remember, these are three of some three thousand worldwide.
On the skeptic side, Singer, Balling, Michaels, have, frankly, not very impressive scientific records by these measures. Lindzen does, and Baliunas does overall, but not for the climate work. Why does this matter? BECAUSE THE MEDIA FOR YEARS HAS BEEN PUTTING PEOPLE LIKE MICHAELS, SINGER, AND BALLING ON THE SAME LEVEL AS SANTER, TRENBERTH, and WIGLEY WHEN IT COMES TO CLIMATE SCIENCE!!!!
The ONLY one of the skeptics who has a credibly strong record in the area is Lindzen, and I must say that the revelations that he has taken fossil fuel money concern me. It suggests that his mainstream funding may have dried up. Whether that is the case or not, when you look at
RICHARD LINDZEN vs. 2-3000 CREDIBLE SCIENTISTS tell me, oh media, WHY DO YOU CALL THAT BALANCE??????
A number I have heard used is simply the proportion of peer-reviewed papers on either side. As I recall, last year there were on the order of 1000 papers on climate, of which roughly 700 showed evidence of change or detailed mechanisms, and the other three hundred assumed change incidentally to their subject.
The number of peer-reviewed papers that argued against climate change was either zero or some trivial number.
The best way to counter the baloney, which comes exclusively from fossil-fuel interests, might be to ally with insurance companies. There is already maneuvering for cold-water port access, I hear. Lloyd's is most certainly not depending on faith.
May 12, 2006 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, calguy.
I'm interested in reading more about the fossil-fuel-funding of these naysayers. In RFK Jr.'s "Crimes Against Nature," he makes many mentions of this type of funding, and I'm curious if you have seen additional or new info.
(PS, if you haven't read that book, you should.)
Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.
May 12, 2006 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks cscs.
Ross Gelbspan goes into this issue chapter and verse in his two books on the subject, and Rampton and Stauber did similarly in one of their books.
In Michaels case is more concerning (fossil fuel funding). He is a research professor with no set salary line from the university and so is beholden to his fossil fuel patrons entirely. That tends to bias you.
May 12, 2006 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Erratum:
Here are updated numbers for Michaels-
Michaels: Total papers on web: 54
Highest cited paper: 24
Total citations: 310
Cites per year since Phd (1979): 11
Cites per paper: 6
May 14, 2006 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
One other point-Lindzen's dissertation was in 1964, not 1972.
May 14, 2006 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink