Alan Heeger on organic solar cells

30 09 2011




Expert credibility in climate change

25 09 2011

William R. L. Anderegg et al.

PNAS July 6, 2010 vol. 107  12107-12109  doi 10.1073/pnas.1003187107

Abstract

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.





Editor of Remote Sensing journal resigns

6 09 2011

(PhysOrg.com) — Wolfgang Wagner, editor of the journal Remote Sensing, has resigned from his post after an internal review revealed that a paper published in his journal by climatic scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell had not been properly reviewed before publishing. Subsequently, he says a paper that was fundamentally flawed was allowed to be printed, damaging the integrity of the journal, and thus the only right thing for him to do was resign.

In addition to submitting his resignation, Wagner posted a final editorial in the and in it not only accepted full blame for publishing the  and apologized for the , but took the opportunity to take some shots at the media for what he says were overinflated headlines regarding the claims made by the authors in the paper. He was referring to the headlines of such mainstream media as Forbes, Fox News and others who chose to use the paper and it’s finding as a means for furthering their own interests at the expense of accurate science.

The paper caused an uproar in the scientific community when printed in July due to its assertions that computer models that predict the amount of global warming that will occur in the future are flawed and thus temperatures won’t increase as much as others have suggested.