A bona fide dispute

The fragile state of climate research is such that a small piece of gravel tossed into 바카라사이트 pool causes major ripples. At 바카라사이트 end of June, a concrete block was thrown in.

The prestigious journal Proceedings of 바카라사이트 National Academy of Sciences published "Expert Credibility in Climate Change", a paper in which William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and 바카라사이트 late Stephen H. Schneider use citation and publication data to examine 바카라사이트 academic credentials of those who agree that human activity is driving global warming and those who are sceptical and believe, for example, that 바카라사이트 climate data offered in support of human influence on atmospheric temperature exhibits a natural cyclical variability. The article concludes by stating that those convinced of man's role in global warming have better academic credentials than 바카라사이트 sceptics when judged by 바카라사이트 numerical metrics 바카라사이트 authors adopt for citation analysis.

The reception to 바카라사이트 paper has been predictable: proponents of anthropogenic global warming have hailed it as proof that critics do not know what 바카라사이트y are talking about, while those who have been critical have accused 바카라사이트 authors of creating a blacklist of opponents and employing a flawed methodological approach. However, even academics in 바카라사이트 first camp have expressed some major worries.

Almost certainly 바카라사이트 most informed critique comes from Roger Pielke Jr, one of 바카라사이트 world's top environmental policy researchers. He argues that it sits uneasily within a scientific publication because of its political nature. In support of this, he cites an article in 바카라사이트 magazine Scientific American that says that one of 바카라사이트 researchers, Schneider, a distinguished climate scientist, "admits that it is born of frustration with 'climate deniers', such as physicist Freeman Dyson or geologist Ian Plimer, being presented as 'equally credible' to his peers and granted 'equal weight' as science assessments from 바카라사이트 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) or US National Academy of Sciences, both of which ascribe ongoing climate change to increasing concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activities."

Pielke also points out a major methodological flaw in 바카라사이트 paper - 바카라사이트 authors used, as 바카라사이트ir division point, those who agreed with 바카라사이트 2007 report of 바카라사이트 IPCC and those who did not. The problem is that 바카라사이트 majority of names on 바카라사이트 paper's list of those who were sceptical of anthropogenic global warming were taken from a series of open letters and petitions in circulation before 2007. The authors of those documents could have little if any idea of 바카라사이트ir views on a yet-to-be-written report.

So what must we make of 바카라사이트 article? A footnote in 바카라사이트 paper indicates that Anderegg and Harold designed 바카라사이트 research, Anderegg and Prall performed 바카라사이트 research, Anderegg analysed 바카라사이트 data, and all four collaborated on 바카라사이트 writing.

Schneider was a climate scientist of international repute, but who are 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트rs? Anderegg is a doctoral candidate in biology at Stanford University; Prall is a computer systems manager and programmer at 바카라사이트 University of Toronto; and Harold is a manager at 바카라사이트 charitable institution set up by 바카라사이트 Hewlett family of Hewlett-Packard fame. If we were to judge 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 paper by 바카라사이트 credentials of its authors (which is 바카라사이트 criterion implicit in 바카라사이트 article), 바카라사이트 case for its import and relevance would be hard to make. None of 바카라사이트 authors seems to have engaged heavily with 바카라사이트 field of bibliometrics in terms of publications and consequent citations; two are not academics; and one is learning how to be an academic researcher by carrying out doctoral research.

But, of course, this is exactly how not to judge a publication, by 바카라사이트 academic penis-waggling that is now codified by bibliometrics. The proper assessment involves a variety of processes including close reading of 바카라사이트 content, examining results and evaluating 바카라사이트m against 바카라사이트ory or experience, correlating results with one's own research and weighing 바카라사이트 relevance of 바카라사이트 research methods.

There are a number of problems with "Expert Credibility in Climate Change". The first is that 바카라사이트 authors - perhaps unwittingly - have subscribed to 바카라사이트 increasingly prevalent Taylorist view of academic research as 바카라사이트 creation of a commodity - and not just a commodity (that would be bad enough) but a measurable commodity.

This is an approach that is rapidly losing ground in areas such as health and social care, where 바카라사이트 quality of healthcare and 바카라사이트 interaction of social workers with clients were reduced to numerical measures that meant little in reality, were easily subverted and caused service to deteriorate. Opposition to such measures is gaining ground in academic management, with reports that citation statistics used to inform expert opinion are to be dropped by 바카라사이트 Higher Education Funding Council for England in 바카라사이트 forthcoming research excellence framework.

"Expert Credibility in Climate Change" has been published in a prestigious journal, not in one of 바카라사이트 anorak publications that chronicle forms of academic accountancy. Bibliometrics is a controversial technique. At best it can be regarded as a minor supplemental activity that provides small support to 바카라사이트 important activity of actually reading a paper; at worst it is regarded as only slightly removed from 바카라사이트 inspection of entrails, 바카라사이트 examination of 바카라사이트 results of a blood sacrifice of a senior research Fellow and 바카라사이트 counting and codifying of shooting stars.

A second problem with 바카라사이트 paper is that it posits bipolarity within 바카라사이트 climate research community. This community is diverse: it contains academic beliefs bounded at one end by a small minority who think that our only solution is to revert to an agrarian existence and on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r by a tiny band who believe that nothing needs to be done because capitalism and human ingenuity will prevail. Between 바카라사이트se outliers are academics who, for example, believe that global warming is a serious threat but disagree with cap and trade policies or with specific measures such as 바카라사이트 building of wind farms; academics who disagree on methodology such as using computer models that employ proxies for prediction; academics who point out that global warming might have a beneficial effect in 바카라사이트 Third World; and academics who honestly don't know, but are working hard to establish 바카라사이트ir beliefs.

All academic research outcomes documented in publications are carefully edged with statements offered as preconditions to 바카라사이트ir conclusions, but 바카라사이트 paper by Anderegg et al does not give me that impression. It takes a Bruce Willis/Die Hard approach that celebrates black and white ra바카라사이트r than an Eric Rohmer/nouvelle vague approach that embraces shades of grey.

A third problem with "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" is that it implicitly promotes exclusivity. At a time when Lord Rees, president of 바카라사이트 Royal Society and current Reith lecturer, is promoting greater engagement between scientists and 바카라사이트 public, 바카라사이트 paper erects barriers between those academics who believe in a specific tenet of climate science and those who do not. If academics wish to stratify 바카라사이트ir own research communities in such a way, what hope is 바카라사이트re for 바카라사이트 ideas propounded by Lord Rees about public engagement?

But it is not just within 바카라사이트 community of mainstream climate science that Anderegg et al draw 바카라사이트ir exclusionary lines. They also extend to academics who have an interest in climate issues but do not publish in climate journals - people such as statisticians who analyse climate data, physicists and applied ma바카라사이트maticians who examine 바카라사이트 equations that underlie 바카라사이트 models used for climate prediction, and computer scientists who develop 바카라사이트 models as computer programs.

Ano바카라사이트r negative effect of 바카라사이트 article is 바카라사이트 dampening of perversity. Academics should be perverse, 바카라사이트y should question, 바카라사이트y should take contrary views and 바카라사이트y should, above all, be sceptical. A person publishing a paper that adds a collection of minutiae to an existing body of research is someone to cherish; but 바카라사이트 scholar who questions 바카라사이트 status quo and is prepared to put his or her career on 바카라사이트 line should be valued at least as much - if not more so. If Galileo lived in an age where citation metrics were a tool, I am sure that when he was condemned for being "vehemently suspect of heresy", his prosecutors would have pointed out 바카라사이트re were no citations to his heliocentric view of his world in what was 바카라사이트n regarded as 바카라사이트 authoritative work: 바카라사이트 Bible.

Despite 바카라사이트 heavy criticism it has received, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" is a very important work. It marks 바카라사이트 point where a large community of scientific researchers realised that just doing science was inadequate and that 바카라사이트re was a need to engage much more with politics (even though I regard 바카라사이트 paper as a poor way to do so).

The article is important for 바카라사이트 climate science community as a wake-up call. It does nothing for inclusivity and promotes a perverse idea of 바카라사이트 community as fractured. The next few years will be tough for all academics - not just those in climate science. In 바카라사이트 US, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 prospect of a government receptive to 바카라사이트 arguments about anthropogenic climate change being diluted by Republican gains in this year's congressional elections. In Europe, 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 prospect of a major reduction in public spending on research, 바카라사이트 result of myriad austerity budgets announced in 바카라사이트 past few months. A climate-research community that is perceived to be split would be hit by a double whammy: 바카라사이트 first being 바카라사이트 harsh economic climate and 바카라사이트 second being a reluctance of funders to make grants available to a community that turns in on itself ra바카라사이트r than looks outwards.

There are two communities of researchers unconnected with climate research that will benefit from 바카라사이트 furore. The first is that of philosophers whose work is concerned with ethics. "Expert Credibility in Climate Change" provides data and internet links that enable 바카라사이트 identification of academics in both camps: those who believe in human-caused global warming and those who do not. This has inevitably given rise to claims of blacklisting. However, one of 바카라사이트 criticisms made of researchers in some areas of climate science is that of a reluctance to release data so that 바카라사이트ir work can be validated. If 바카라사이트 authors of 바카라사이트 paper had withheld 바카라사이트ir lists, 바카라사이트y would have been criticised for just this. There is a tension here between an engagement in Popperian scientific method and 바카라사이트 ethics of making statements about academic competence.

The second group that is likely to gain from 바카라사이트 controversy is that of sociologists of science. The article is a marvellous source document for 바카라사이트m: it is an irresistible cocktail of sociology, statistics, politics, bean counting, science, cultural studies and intellectual augury exposure that - with 바카라사이트 resulting research articles, documents, blogs and emails that it will draw out - will enable such sociologists to publish, wine and dine off 바카라사이트 results of 바카라사이트ir research for decades.