“Battle over Climate Data Turned into War Between Scientists and Sceptics” & “Climate Change Debate Overheated after Sceptic Grasped ‘Hockey Stick’
This is a DOUBLE blog . It is due NEXT Friday, April 10, at 2:00 PM
1. Overall, do you feel Pearce is expressing a preference for one side or the other despite claims of presenting a “balanced” depiction of the controversy? What specific quotes can you pull to support your conclusion regarding Pearce’s true position?
2. At one point, Pearce refers to the climate scientists as a “priesthood,” Later on, he refers to the climate change skeptics as “acolytes.” Both terms are religious in nature. Why does the author use these terms in the context of a science debate?
3. Assuming that the climate scientists are not actually trying to perpetrate a hoax, why would they not offer up their data to public viewing? What might their legitimate motives be?
4. Some of the thousands of email sent by the CRU to fellow researchers are rude when refereeing to some of the skeptics. Is it legitimate to critique the CRU based on the content of presumably private or “in-house” communications? How would you feel if an email you wrote to a fellow student about an professor were made public?
5. The skeptics, for the most part, are not climate researchers. The lead critic, McIntyre, is a mathematician. But he is still a scientist. In your opinion, should non-experts be given the same voice in a controversy not directly related to their field of expertise? Does McIntyre’s previous career as a “successful…[head] of…Canadian minerals companies” impact his ethos further?
6. Review the Kyoto treaty (I suggest the Wikipedia article on the topic). What aspects of the treaty (which the US did not ratify) might be seen as a threat to political and commercial interests?
7. Many of the skeptics may have political and economic interest in denying global climate change. What plausible agenda might the climate scientists have for promoting the theory of man-made global climate change?
8. Republican Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma is quoted in the article as believing global warming is a hoax. Assuming that he is not scientifically illiterate and simply being rhetorical, why might a Republican politician from Oklahoma be against the concept of global climate change as a reality? (Hint: consider the state he represents.)
9. Mann’s critics tend to point to his personality and argumentative style as his biggest fault. Should this be a consideration in the debate about the validity of his research?
10. Summarize, in your own words, M&M’s main argument against Mann’s findings and the “Hockey Stick” graph.
11. Why are tree rings used as one of the indicators of the rise in global temperatures? What can reading tree rings tell us about global climate? What are the potential problems with using tree rings (as discussed in the article).
12. Mann admitted to faults in his research. M&M were “right” about some of the details of Mann’s statistical process. Did it ultimately make any difference with regards to Mann’s conclusions?
13. What kind of stance did M&M take with Mann’s research after his conclusions were replicated by other scientists? How did their argumentative strategy change? In your opinion, are their “new” critiques more or less valid? Why or why not? (Hint: if you are unsure what I am talking about, review page 95.)