Mind the Red Herrings

On Stoat, a new paper says that misinformation causes confusion about otherwise settled climate science, and suggests that the "direct study of misinformation" can potentially "sharpen student critical thinking skills, raise awareness of the processes of science such as peer review, and improve understanding of the basic science." William M. Connolley looks at more papers in another post, exclaiming "Good grief, the world is full of new science all of a sudden." Two of the papers offer explanations as to why atmospheric methane levels have not increased as much as expected: it could be "reduced microbial sources in the Northern Hemisphere" and "reduced emissions from rice agriculture in Asia," or it could be due to changes in fossil fuel emissions. And on Greg Laden's Blog, the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation concludes Michael E. Mann did not unfairly doctor the "hockey stick graph" of Climategate fame. Greg says this blow to climate change denialists still "won't have an immediate effect on their use of questionable tactics or their profusion of beliefs that are just too bizarre to believe that they actually hold."

More like this

ABSTRACT: Despite the existence of a clear scientiï¬c consensus about global warming, opinion surveys ï¬nd confusion among the American public, regarding both scientiï¬c issues and the strength of the scientiï¬c consensus. Evidence increasingly points to misinformation as a contributing factor.…
The Inspector General of the National Science foundation has completed an investigation into falsifying research data, concealing or deleting emails or other data, misusing privileged information, and seriously deviating form accepted practices in relation to climate change research by climate…
I've said before (and correctly sourced the original observation to JA) that atmospheric methane is way below its IPCC scenarios (which of course leads to a lower forcing). There is a recent thing in Nature that may explain this: Atmospheric methane (CH4) increased through much of the twentieth…
According to this profile, Miranda Devine (last seen making stuff up in an attempt to debunk the Lancet study), once worked for the textile physics division of CSIRO. So she should know that one purpose of peer review is to weed out scientific papers that are inaccurate or where the conclusions…