If you reply to this long (15 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
********************************************
ABSTRACT: EdResMeth's Jim Gaffney asked (paraphrasing) "How does the
imputation of George Will's (2009a) denial of global warming as
'uninformed' advance research? My answer: Will's uninformed opinion
is actually believed by many of his readers and thus tends to negate
the general scientific research consensus that anthropogenic global
warming does indeed exist - see e.g., APS (2007), IPCC (2007a,b;
2009). Therefore calling attention to the uninformed nature of Will's
opinion may help to discredit it, and thereby advance the scientific
research consensus.
********************************************
In response to my post "George Will's Uninformed Denial of Global
Warming" [Hake (2009a)], EdResMeth's Jim Gaffney (2009) wrote
[bracketed by lines "GGGGG. . . . "]:
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Please tell me how this relates to Educational Research?
I can and did read George Will's article! My reaction was personal
and I try to keep abreast of issues as a concerned citizen. And I am
sure you do as well.
But don't impugn his article which appeared in our local paper (not
in a Science journal) with words like: "uninformed".
It was his opinion that was expressed! Pejorative terms don't
advance research.
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
Since educational research is a subset of scientific research
[Shavelson & Towne (2002)], I'll take the liberty of rephrasing
Gaffney's first and forth sentences as:
GAFFNEY'S QUESTION: How does the imputation of George Will's
(2009a) denial of global warming as "uninformed" advance research?
MY ANSWER: Unfortunately, Will's uninformed opinion is believed by
many of his readers and thus tends to negate the general scientific
research consensus that anthropogenic global warming does indeed
exist - see e.g., APS (2007), IPCC (2007a,b; 2009). Therefore calling
attention to the uninformed nature of Will's opinion may help to
discredit it, and thereby advance the scientific research consensus.
REFERENCES
APS. 2007. American Physical Society Statement on Climate Change;
online at <http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm>:
"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the
atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases
include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other
gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of
industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is
incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating
actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical
and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are
likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases
beginning now."
Fleck, J. 2009. "In Defense of Walter Sullivan," in a blog "jfleck at
inkstain"; online at <http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/?p=3418>. Fleck
wrote". . . .I was so saddened to see the glib trashing of Sullivan's
work by a know-nothing columnist . . .[George Will (2009a)]. . . .
today in one of those east coast dailies, out by Baltimore. The
columnist accused Sullivan, the New York Times science writer who is
in many ways the pioneer of our craft, of being 'a megaphone for the
alarmed' for his coverage of climate in a May 1975 article. [Will
wrote] 'the New York Times was - as it is today in a contrary crusade
- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported
that 'a major cooling of the climate' was 'widely considered
inevitable' because it was 'well established' that the Northern
Hemisphere's climate 'has been getting cooler since about 1950.' How
could Walter Sullivan have gotten it so wrong? The answer is, he
didn't. Watch those selective quotes, there, Mr. Columnist! Here, in
fact, is what Sullivan actually wrote. We'll start, shall we, with
the first sentence: [Sullivan wrote] 'The world's climate is
changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what
direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.' You really don't
need to go beyond that to realize Mr. Columnist has misquoted the
late Walter Sullivan, who died in 1996 and is therefore not around to
defend himself. But read on, because Sullivan's great. He goes on to
capture, in a piece better than any I have read, the rich texture of
the science of the day: . . . . . . . ."
Gaffney, J. 2009. "Derogatory reaction to George Will," EdResMeth
post of 5 Mar 2009 15:51:48-0500; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/d7gxa4>. To access the archives of EdResMeth one
needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.uconn.edu/edresmeth-l.html> and then clicking on
"Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're busy, then
subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous." Then, as a
subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post messages at any
time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list!
Hake, R.R. 2009a. "George Will's Uninformed Denial of Global
Warming," of 3 March 14:18:04-0800 to AERA-L, Net-Gold, and PHYSOC;
online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at <http://tinyurl.com/cdlpah>.
The abstract only was sent to other discussion lists including
AERA-D, EdResMeth, EvalTalk, POD, and TIPS. The abstract is also
online with provision for comments at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/03/george-wills-uninformed-denial-of.html>.
See also Hake (2009b,c).
Hake, R.R. 2009b. "George Will's Uninformed Denial of Global
Warming," EdResMeth post of 4 Mar 2009 17:28:25-0800, online on the
EdResMeth archives at <http://tinyurl.com/bqsl8k>. To access the
archives of EdResMeth see Gaffney (2009) above. A better subject
heading would have been "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling
Scientific Consensus," as discussed in the Bulletin of the American
Meteorological Society by Peterson, Connolley, & Fleck (2008). This
post was also transmitted to PHYSOC but, for unknown reasons, failed
to appear on the archives.
Hake, R.R. 2009c. "Re: Paradigms about particular scientific
results," PhysLrnR post of 8 Mar 2009 11:09:59-0700; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/bxqb9p>. To access the archives of PhysLnR one
needs to subscribe, but that takes only a few minutes by clicking on
<http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/physlrnr.html> and then
clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If you're
busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under "Miscellaneous."
Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives and/or post
messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the list! This
post was also transmitted to PHYSOC but, for unknown reasons, failed
to appear on the archives.
IPCC. 2007a. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate
Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis," Working Group I
contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge
University Press, publisher's information at
<http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521705967>.
An excerpt is online at
<http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/80091/excerpt/9780521880091_excerpt.pdf>
(1.1 MB): "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling
influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report,
leading to *very high confidence*. . . . [at least a 9 out of 10
chance of being correct]. . . . that the global average net effect of
human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with a radiative
forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m-2 (see Figure SPM.2). . . . " See
also Figure SPM.1. "Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxide over the last 10,000 years (large panels)
and since 1750 (inset panels). Measurements are shown from ice cores
(symbols with different colours for different studies) and
atmospheric samples (red lines). The corresponding radiative forcings
are shown on the right hand axes of the large panels. . . . .
'Radiative forcing' is a measure of the influence that a factor has
in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the
Earth-atmosphere system and is an index of the importance of the
factor as a potential climate change mechanism. Positive forcing
tends to warm the surface while negative forcing tends to cool it. In
this report, radiative forcing values are for 2005 relative to
pre-industrial conditions defined at 1750 and are expressed in watts
per square metre (W m-2).
IPCC. 2007b. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate
Change 2007 - Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability," Working Group
II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC,
Cambridge University Press, publisher's information at
<http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521705974>.
An excerpt is online at
<http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/80107/excerpt/9780521880107_excerpt.pdf>
(856 kB): ". . . . the consistency between observed and modelled
changes in several studies and the spatial agreement between
significant regional warming and consistent impacts at the global
scale is sufficient to conclude with high . . . .[about an 8 out of
10 chance of being correct]. . . . that anthropogenic warming over
the last three decades has had a discernible influence on many
physical and biological systems."
Peterson, T.C., W.H. Connolley, & J. Fleck. 2008. "The Myth of the
1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus." Online as an abstract
plus the complete report as 4.1 MB pdf at
<http://tinyurl.com/cu45on>. The uninformed George Will (2004, 2008,
2009a,b) has been a leading propagator of the myth. The abstract
reads: ". . . .An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s
the climate science community was predicting 'global cooling' and an
'imminent' ice age, AN OBSERVATION FREQUENTLY USED BY THOSE WHO WOULD
UNDERMINE WHAT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS SAY TODAY ABOUT THE PROSPECT OF
GLOBAL WARMING. [My CAPS.] A review of the literature suggests that,
on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists'
thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's
climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the
falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the
time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern
climate science now rests."
Shavelson, R.J. & L. Towne, eds. 2002. "Scientific Research in
Education," National Academy Press; online at
<http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10236.html>.
Will, G.F. 2004. " Global warming? Hot air," Washington Post, 23 December.
Will, G.F. 2008. "March of the polar bears," Washington Post, 22 May.
Will, G.F. 2009a. "Dark Green Doomsayers,"15 February; online at
<http://tinyurl.com/co682o>. Blithely ignoring scientific research
[Peterson et al. (2008)], Will continues to propagate "the myth of
the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus" that he previously
advanced in Will (2004, 2008). For more of the same see Will (2009b).
Will's devious selective quoting from Walter Sullivan's article in
the New York Times of 21 May 1975 so as to misrepresent it as "a
megaphone for the alarmed" has been cogently discussed by John Fleck
(2009).