Dickinson Nepal Mosaic

When Rising Seas Hit Home: How Does it Stack Up?

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Sarah House

“Coastal flooding from Cyclone Hamish in Queensland 2009.” Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

I consider a source of information on climate change to be credible if it strives for accuracy and clarity and makes it intentions and the process behind it clear. To ensure accuracy, the method of data collection should be carefully considered. The data should also be applied in a proper context, so that its significance is not distorted. I would want those who provide the data and analysis to be experts in the field, who have both education and experience in that subject, and are therefore likely to know what data is useful and how to apply it. Transparency is also essential because it ensures that others can judge the validity of the source for themselves: a source’s own claim to its credibility is not enough. The source should reveal the data it relies on, lay out the reasoning behind any conclusions it draws, and acknowledge areas of imperfection or uncertainty. To show that the source stands up to outside scrutiny, I would want other experts to signal their approval. Affiliation with well respected institutions helps, because it is a sign that those institutions trust the quality of the information enough to stake their own reputation on it.

When Rising Seas Hit Home is an analysis of flood threats for coastal areas in the United States. It pinpoints communities where the effects of frequent flooding are likely to severely affect people’s day to day lives. It discusses the risks these communities face and provides recommendations to prepare. The report is intended to inform people who do not have scientific expertise, and it delivers an analysis without the raw data. However, the peer-reviewed journal Elementa has published the research which backs the report’s conclusions.

The researchers clearly went through a meticulous process to collect their data. To develop a “frequency threshold” to determine which communities should receive the most attention, researchers conducted interviews with experts from affected areas (Dahl). In doing so, they ensured that the information would be held to a professional standard but also tailored to individual communities. They used tide gauges and digital elevation models to determine the frequency and extent of flooding. Predictions of sea level rise came from models initially created for the Third National Climate Assessment, which was put together for the U.S. Global Change Research Program by a group of over 300 experts and underwent thorough peer and public review (National Climate Assessment). Apparently, the models have widely been deemed relevant both for climate change analysts and the communities they wish to serve. In order to take socioeconomic factors into account, they turned to the Social Vulnerability Index, citing its “extensive use by previous studies” and the comprehensive set of variables it considers (Dahl). Clearly, the researchers sought out tools that had proven useful and reliable for other experts. By accounting for attributes of the communities themselves- not just flooding data- into their analysis, they ensured that its significance for the public was made clear.

Although they express confidence in their methods, the authors also highlight sources of uncertainty, including the wide range of possibilities for sea level rise and the margin of error for elevation and tidal measurements (Dahl). The authors have good reason to stand behind their data; however, they do not express so much confidence as to hide their mistakes.They also present a step-by-step report of the calculations and logic behind their analysis. The publication of the material in a peer-reviewed journal shows that this analysis has stood up to the criticism of other experts. The report itself also has highly qualified support. The publicly geared analysis was written for the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is led by Kenneth Kimmell (president), a legal expert who has worked in environmental policy for more than three decades, and Kathleen Rest (executive director), a health policy expert whose work has focused extensively on occupational and environmental health (Union of Concerned Scientists). These people are clearly familiar with environmental issues and their impact on the public. The organization was founded at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Union of Concerned Scientists). Judging by MIT’s reputation as an extremely prestigious university, I trust them to put stock only in well-founded information.

The people who developed this report certainly seem qualified to do so. Its main authors include Erika Spanger-Siegfried, who has been in charge of multiple other projects on sea-level rise, as well as other aspects of climate change. She has a graduate degree in energy and environmental analysis (Union of Concerned Scientists). Kristina Dahl, the other main author, specializes in studying the effects of coastal flooding. She has a Ph.D. in paleoclimatology, or climate history. Four of the five other contributors also specialize in climate change issues, although each has a slightly different area of expertise (Spanger-Siegfried). Their knowledge and experience goes beyond climate science to also cover adaptation methods, economics and advocacy for marginalized groups. Their varied expertise ensures that the analysis is accurate and relevant to all aspects of the issues it addresses.

Overall, I consider this report to be a credible source. Every step of its production seems to have been carefully considered by relevant experts, and it is backed by a wealth of qulaified support. It is worthy of its important role in helping coastal communities to prepare for the life-changing effects of climate change.

Works Cited

Dahl, Kristina A., Erika Spanger-Siegfried,, Astrid Caldas, and Shana Udvardy. “Effective Inundation of Continental United States Communities with 21st Century Sea Level Rise.” Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene, Vol. 5 No. 37, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.234.

National Climate Assessment. U.S. Global Change REsearch Program, 2014, http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/. Accessed 25 Sept. 2017.

Spanger-Siegfried, Erika, Kristina Dahl, Astrid Caldas, Shana Udvardy, Rachel Cleetus, Pamela Worth, Nicole Hernandez Hammer. When Rising Seas Hit Home: Hard Choices Ahead for US Coastal Communities. Union of Concerned Scientists, July 2017.

Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

Assessing the credibility of sources

Posted on September 25, 2017 by nguyenna

When conducting literature review, it is important that we use reliable sources in order to obtain the most accurate information. Especially, when it comes to the topic of climate change, citing sound data from a reputable organization is even more important, as the issue is still widely debated in American politics. The criteria that I use to critically examine a source includes:

Who are the authors of the essay? What are their academic backgrounds and experience?
Are the sources cited by the writing from peer-reviewed articles or other credible reports?

I chose to analyze an academic journal article,“Early Effects of Climate Change: Do They Include Changes in Vector-Borne Disease?,” published by the Royal Society. According to the publisher’s website, the Royal Society has been chartered since the 1660s, with the goal of recognizing, promoting and supporting scientific research to encourage the use of science for developing humanity. The society is comprised of prominent scientists, with a total of 8000 elected members over the past four centuries. Many distinguished scientists, such as Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, and Stephen Hawking, are members of the society. For this particular journal, the authors come from strong scientific backgrounds. Sari Kovats, one of the authors, has been actively researching the links between climate change and its effects on human health for over the past 15 years. She was the co-Coordinating Lead Author for Chapter 23 on Europe in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Tony McMichael, one of the other authors, chaired the committee assessing health risks for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change between 1993-1996 and worked for the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University in Canberra, where he published his highly-regarded research linking global environmental change to the spread of infectious diseases. Alistair Woodward led the writing of the health section of the 5th assessment report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Based on the background of the publisher, and the journal’s authors, we can make the assessment that this journal is coming from a reputable source, where all the contributing authors have had extensive research experience on the issue discussed.

In the journal, the authors review existing literature on climate change, vector-borne diseases and studies linking climate change and vector-borne diseases, to assess the quality of existing evidence on the issue and design criteria to conduct successful experiments. Citing the IPCC, the authors recognize that there have been anthropogenic-induced warming patterns across the globe over the past few decades. In theory, a change in climate, such as warmer temperatures and wetter conditions, will cause changes in the geographic range, seasonality, and incident rates of vectors. The authors cited multiple scientific reports on studies of increasing tick populations in Sweden or increase in malaria incidences after dam construction, to assess the quality of data related to the issue. They recognize that there is not enough robust evidence linking climate change to increases in vector-borne diseases, due to the fact that there have not been enough long-term studies (>10 years) on the issue, as the topic of study had just emerged in recent decades. Other alternative explanations to increasing vector-borne diseases can be attributable to socioeconomic, demographic and environmental effects, enough to cast doubt on the role of climate change. However, as the authors noted, the existing evidence is highly suggestive and the linkage must be seen as “absence of evidence” rather than “evidence of absence.”

Figure 1. The process through which climate change may affect vectors. Source: Kovats et al. (2000)

Throughout the academic journal, the authors remained unbiased and scientific. Every statement was supported by multiple cited sources, as expected from a peer-reviewed article. The authors recognized that there is strong evidence, but not robust enough. Since the article reviews all existing evidence of linkages between climate change and vector-borne diseases, the authors’ research and work backgrounds provide credibility to their assessment. Thus, in my opinion, this source is highly trustworthy.

Sources Cited:

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. 2017. About us: Dr. Sari Kovats. Retrieved from https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/aboutus/people/kovats.sari

McKee and C. Butler. 2014. Tony McMichael Obituary. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/oct/13/tony-mcmichael

The University of Auckland. University directory search: Professor Jack Woodward. Retrieved from https://unidirectory.auckland.ac.nz/profile/a-woodward

The Royal Society. History of the Royal Society. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

Kovats, R.S., Campbell-Lendrum, D.H., McMichel, A.J., Woodward, A. and Cox, J.S.H., 2001. Early effects of climate change: do they include changes in vector-borne disease?. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 356(1411), pp.1057-1068.

Tagged Human security | Comments Off

The Credibility of Climate Change Information

Posted on September 25, 2017 by brownemm

I chose to examine an interactive article from the New York Times, “Climate Change is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions” because I knew I would have a hard time being partial in my analysis. My trust in the New York Times comes from years of relying on it for news; subconsciously I think I find it as impartial as an organization like NPR. The information printed in the NYT also tends to align with my views which naturally increases my confidence in their credibility; however, there are several things that might decrease the credibility of the New York Times articles as sources on climate change.

While I might like to view the Times as being relatively impartial and I’m certain that journalists working for the Times would view it as impartial, there is no denying that it leans a little to the left. It isn’t as far to the left as Fox New is to the right, but I think it falls a slightly left of center. As climate change is currently a partisan issue, liberal journalists might be inclined to publish articles about climate change that place an emphasis on the evidence that calls for dramatic action plans and might not include evidence about uncertain aspects of climate change.

Another thing that makes New York Times articles on climate change less credible is that they aren’t always written by scientists. For example, the biography page on the NYT website for Justin Gillis, author of “Climate Change is Complex” doesn’t mention what he studied in college or any expertise he might have in any science. All I know about Gillis is that he covers climate change and policy for the Times. The credibility of the author is crucial for the credibility of the information in the article.

Finally, articles in the New York Times aren’t peer reviewed. While there is a fact check process, it could never compare to the rigor of peer review that precedes publication in a scientific journal.

There are, however, certain aspects of “Climate Change is Complex” increase its credibility as a source. For example, the article is full of hyperlinks to articles about the various subjects discussed. While I found that most of the links lead to other articles in the New York Times, most of those articles contained links to actual reports with peer reviewed information.

My evaluation of the New York Times as a credible source depends on what the use of the information is. If I were writing a research paper on the facts of climate change, I wouldn’t say that the Times qualifies as a credible source. I wouldn’t cite something I read in an article, I would cite something from the report an article is based on. However, given the way that information is cited in articles like “Climate Change is Complex” NYT is a great starting place for basic information. While I think I would classify climate change articles in the Times as trustworthy, I don’t think trustworthy is synonymous with academically credible. The New York Times is first and foremost a newspaper and with respect to climate change that means condensing a lot of complicated information into a relatively simple and short article. While I trust the New York Times, academically credible information on scientific issues like climate change have to come from more comprehensive, peer reviewed sources.

Bibliography

Gillis, Justin. “Climate Change is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions.” New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged climate, climate change, credibility, fact check, facts, peer review | Comments Off

Credible Sources and the “Climate Change Evidence and Causes” report

Posted on September 25, 2017 by huangje

There are a lot of sources you can find about climate change, but determining which sources are credible is essential tool. In the criteria for checking a source’s credibility, it is valuable to learn about the author or authors writing the information. Determining if they are experts in the field or just commentators could change the way you use the source. Also, understanding the purpose of the authors could give insight to the possibility of bias influence. Lastly, checking the origin of the information and the possible review process for publication can increase the credibility of the source.

With the evaluation of the 2014 report, “Climate Change Evidence and Causes”, published by the National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society, I started by researching the authors of the report. Learning of the role the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), I found that the NAS is just one of the three academies operated by the National Research Council, the other two being the National Academy of Engineer and the National Academy of Medicine. These academies have examined climate change activities throughout displicines, encompassing the natural sciences, social sciences, health sciences, transportation, and the international realm (About Climate Change at the NASEM). Gathering members through election by peers for outstanding contributions to research, the NAS assembles the top scientific and technical experts of all fields. NAS was established in 1863 by President Lincoln with the purpose “to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology” (About Climate Change at the NASEM). It serves as a resource for the betterment of the United States. The NAS functions as a private, non-profit, nongovernmental institution in pursuit of advancing science, and bring rigorously peer reviewed finding to advise policy decision making and to inform the public.

Video on the Overview of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)

The second author of this report is the Royal Society. Based in the UK, The Royal Society is a self-governing fellowship of many of the world’s most distinguished scientists. The members, like the NAS, derive from all areas of science, engineering and medicine. Including 1,600 of the world’s most eminent scientists, the members make up the UK’s national science academy. This range of expertise accessed in this report increases the source’s credibility. As addressed in the Royal Society’s founding charters, the Royal Society’s fundamental purpose is “to recognise, promote, and support excellence in science, and to encourage the development and use of science for the benefit of humanity” (Wolff Eric, Inez Fung, et. al.). These priorities promote the excellence of science, the importance of science, and international collaboration, demonstrating that the sources does not show a bias towards any political agenda (Mission and Priorities).

The “Climate Change Evidence and Causes” gives additional material for the information mention in the summary report including links to more detailed reports on specific issues. These links also include access to original research, which shows transparency. Through analyzing the webpage’s address, the .edu, .uk, or .gov indicate that all the sources come from either educational or governmental sites. Understanding the origin of the information in the summary report, the source has much greater credibility. The report is backed by scientific finds and the information can be traced back to its source. Furthermore, the fact that this report is compiled as an international collaboration by two reputable authors is strong indicator of the source’s creditability. There are both international writers and reviewers across disciplines. Reviewers also do not endorse the view of the authors. They are asked to only provide comments and suggestions, and they do not have the last word before the final draft is release as to not bias the report for an ulterior agenda. With an understanding of the thorough vetting process the report passes before publication, the “Climate Change Evidence and Causes” report, with its knowledgeable non-bias authors, and its transparency with research, is a credible source about climate change. As a useful tool for understanding the science and research, I would recommend this source to those wanting to find trustworthy, credible information to further their knowledge on climate change.

(Cover page of the “Climate Change Evidence and Causes” report)

Works Cited

“About Climate Change at the NASEM.” The National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine, Climate Change at the National Academies of the Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017, nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/about-climate-change-at-the-nasem/.

“History of the Royal Society.” History of the Royal Society, Royal Society, 2017, royalsociety.org/about-us/history/#timeline.

“Mission and Priorities.” The Royal Society, Royal Society, 2017, royalsociety.org/about-us/mission-priorities/.

Wolff Eric, Inez Fung, and et. al. “Climate Change Evidence and Causes.” PDF file, 2014.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged climate change, credibility, credible sources | Comments Off

Analyzing Credibility

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Willow Huppert

There is allot of information out there concerning climate change. With so much to sift through one must determine what is credible. A source that we rely on quite heavily in the 250 class is IDS Nepal. The source is where we get many of our readings and the report often is the basis for the essays and blog entries that we write. At first glance the source has all the trappings of a legitimate document, with a nice cover page, complete with a logo. However just because a source looks official doesn’t mean it necessarily is.

The first step that I will take to access the credibility of the source is to look up the organizations that collaborated to construct the report. In the IDS report the Integrated Development Society Nepal, Global Climate Adaptation Partnership and Practical Action Consulting assembled the report. IDS Nepal is a non profit, non governmental agency. IDS Nepal reach NGO status in 2000 and it’s goal is to address the needs of the community at the grassroots level. Global Climate Adaptation Partnership is a company that specializes in climate change adaptation. The company is contracted to consult on various projects, they also run seminars on adaptation methods. Finally, Practical Action Consulting is yet another firm that actually has an office in Nepal. The company provides services to NGOs, focusing on climate change and disaster risk reduction. From what I can tell these organizations are all legitimate and doing the work they aim to be doing. I made this determination by looking through the websites of these organizations where I could see examples of projects they had worked on, the history of their organization and their funding.

Next I’m going to look into the funding of this report. The report was funded by Climate and Development Knowledge Network, UK Aid, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. The Climate and Development Knowledge Network, or CDKN is funded by the The Netherlands and the UK. Seeing a trend in those interested in Nepal I’m led to wonder why these governments funded this report. Do the governments of the UK and the Netherlands have interests or investments in the region? A quick google search led me to a uk.gov website with a transcript of a speech made by the British Ambassador to Nepal, Mr Andy Sparkes CMG. The British government is the single largest donor country to Nepal according to the speech. The British Government also donated quite a bit of money towards the democratic elections in Nepal. The ambassador discussed how the British government hoped to improve relations, advance human rights and create more investment opportunities for British companies in Nepal. The investments that the British Government have made in Nepal have done quite a bit to advance human rights. However one must always question if there’s an underlying reason for all of this investment. The United Kingdom has a long history of involvement in the country through the East India Company. It is likely that they have retained some power in the region from this era of colonization. The Netherlands also has invested in Nepal and a great deal of work has been done with development. The Netherlands and Nepal do some trade, from the little research I have done their investment doesn’t seem malicious.

Finally the report was peer reviewed by CDKN. I take issue with this aspect of the report. A report can not be adequately peer reviewed by the same organization that funded it. However at the same time I recognize that there may be a deficit of climate scientists that are experienced in this area. The report would have more credibility were it reviewed by outside scientists.

“Netherlands Relations.” Nepal, Embassy of Nepal in Brussels, June 2016, www.nepalembassybrussels.be/index.php?page=text&id=36. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

“Practical Action Consulting Nepal.” Practical Action, practicalaction.org/consulting-nepal. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

Sparkes, Andrew James. “Two Hundred Years of Nepal-Britain Relations: A Way Forward.” Two Hundred Years of Nepal-Britain Relations: A Way Forward – GOV.UK, 25 Sept. 2013,www.gov.uk/government/speeches/two-hundred-years-of-nepal-britain-relations-a-way-forward. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

“Supporting climate compatible development.” Climate and Development Knowledge Network, UK Aid, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, cdkn.org/?loclang=en_gb. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

“Welcome to IDS-Nepal Website.” Integrated Development Society (IDS) Nepal-IDS Nepal, www.idsnepal.org/. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Comments Off

Climate Change – Literally Groundbreaking?

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Sam Weisman

Beyoncé called for charity while images of recent climate catastrophes flickered by – Harvey, Irma…Mexico. Twitter quickly rattled against “celebrity pseudo-science”. How far could the climate hoax go? Earthquakes are some of the few remaining environmental events that do not appear related to human impact. Recent studies suggest that even tectonic movement might be altered by climate change in specific areas. In the aftermath of a devastating earthquake in Mexico, Newsweek published “The Weird Way that Climate Change Could Make Earthquakes Worse”. The piece highlights some specific conditions under which climate adaptation could indirectly trigger earthquakes. If a community fears its upstream water source will dry up or entirely melt, it may invest in more dams and reservoirs. Rapid filling and refilling of a reservoir could lubricate fault lines and add pressure to cracks in the earth. Like many factors, these changes could push a tense fault toward a critical state. Is “Dam–Induced Seismicity”(DIS) an issue of correlation but not causation?

From WikiCommons

The Newsweek piece presents a contested issue so the criteria for credibility cannot be absolute either. Instead, it can be judged for framing. The more the piece presents the prospect of climate-triggered earthquakes as an intriguing possibility for future research, the more credible it is. If it attempts to steer this debate toward the affirmative in order to capitalize on a recent catastrophe, it is less credible. Responsible journalism emphasizes both sides of a contentious issue.

Right off the bat, the title of the article is misleading. The wording, “could make” does not immediately imply uncertainty. Instead, it comes across as a prediction. The concise article spends its first section describing the specific prospect of adaptation causing disaster but the anecdote is confusing. A reservoir is useful to stabilize volatile water supply with a stock. In framing the issue around an adaptation oversight, the piece does not explore the obvious question of the impact of hydropower dams. The article also inappropriately frames the climate/earthquake connection around the recent earthquake in Mexico although most observed DIS have been considerably smaller (McCully). In total, the content of this piece sensationalizes a complicated debate. But is the source ultimately credible?

From WikiCommons

Newsweek has historically courted sensationalism over serious discussion when it comes to climate change. Recently, it received criticism for publishing an opinion piece from a climate denier at the Cato Institute (Cousins). In previous climate coverage, Newsweek focused on the aesthetic losses of beautiful islands to appeal to wealthy consumers. In 2014, the magazine was accused of hypocrisy when it published a “travel guide” to these places, encouraging readers to purchase highly consumptive trips (Barasi). In the history of climate discourse, Newsweek has the unfortunate reputation of publishing an article on “global cooling” in 1975, widely cited by climate deniers since (Struck). Thirty-one years later, Newsweek openly rescinded this stance (Media Research Center). Newsweek also faced criticism from climate progressives for its ties with the oil industry. In 2009, the magazine co-hosted a forum on energy policy with the American Petroleum Institute, a major lobbying group. Later, Newsweek’s science editor wrote an article accused of green-washing big oil companies (O’Grady). Through the late 2000s, the magazine gradually declined in readership and eventually suspended its print edition. Collaboration with the fossil fuel industry could have been part of the financial hardship (Dooley). In a period of media saturation, it appears Newsweek has swung toward the sensational. One of its covers featured the phrase “Global Warming is a Hoax” in large letters before disclaiming this statement with an asterisk.

From PatriotPost

Climate change should not be discussed in hyperbole. Nor should its connections with other systems be extrapolated too far. Such behavior invites criticism from deniers. It also blurs attention to serious issues. At some point, readers will turn away from seriously considered climate interconnections. The article touches on a much more serious issue – structural damage to dams from earthquakes. Similarly, it mentions the catastrophic downstream impacts of major environmental restructuring. The piece could have used the opportunity to overview ways in which the presence of dams heightens climate risks. Instead, the Newsweek article on earthquakes and climate change is factually correct, but its framing is sensational and reductionist.

Climate Credibility

Posted on September 25, 2017 by Isabelle Tietbohl

a front page section of the New York Times showing how far above or below average temperatures were in 2014, compared to other years.

The hot topic of climate change has been filling the news lately. As our President and many members of the GOP deny the science behind it, carrying snowballs into the Senate it can be hard to trust the things one reads on this subject. While members of the scientific community are much more aware of the threat that climate change poses to many peoples livelihoods, the general public is forced to sift through articles with fake science, or twisted facts.

In searching for a publication on climate change to evaluate, I found myself more drawn to things that the general public would have access to, as opposed to scientific journals or websites filled with jargon. This lead me to the New York Times, which is still a left leaning publication. One of the writers for the NYT just last week published what would be a seemingly helpful article on climate change: “Climate Change is Complex. We’ve got Answers to Your Questions. This article outlines answers to seventeen climate questions, in a few simple paragraphs.

Reading the article, I still felt some bias within my own analysis. I knew the New York Times was left leaning, and they were highlighting the importance of climate change, and its impacts. It became hard to separate my own views on climate change from what I was reading. Nevertheless, I began my detective work. My science based background proved to be helpful in assessing the credibility of this article. I looked for what websites were cited through the data restated in the article, considered what kind of audience the article was made for, and whether or not the sources used were both clearly outlined and peer reviewed.

I also attempted to assess the credibility of the author, with the understanding that this article was not meant for the scientific community, or to be used for research or implementing policies. It was an article meant to highlight some of the queries that people may have about climate change, to increase general awareness of the issues in an easy to understand way. Justin Gillis, the author of the article exclusively writes about the science of global climate change, and policy implications. His articles have been reviewed by Climate Feedback, where scientists review journalists articles covering climate change.

The overall reviews of his articles explain that he generally explains the research well, and all of Justin Gillis’s articles analyzed by these climate scientists show high “scientific credibility.” He seems to be reputable for a journalist analyzing hard science, although the scientists felt that he could have been more precise with some of his summaries of scientific research. The New York Times is off to a relatively good start with a credible author who has been under review by several climate scientists.

One problem I ran into with assessing the validity of the article, is that some of the facts about climate change were not sited with hyperlinks. I thought that I would find the sources he used at the bottom of the article, but could not find anything that would show where he found the facts such as: “As of early 2017, the Earth had warmed by roughly 2 degrees Fahrenheit (more than 1 degree Celsius) since 1880, when records began at a global scale.” This data rich statement had no citation attached to it, and it seems that there might be fluctuations in these numbers depending on who was researching this.

At first, I was pleased as the first of the hyperlinks embedded into the article lead me to a scholarly journal article from The Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, which has been peer reviewed.

However, I found myself almost immediately disheartened as all of the other hyperlinks in the article, showing where Gillis got his information lead me to other articles published in the New York Times. Every click redirected me back to another journalist reviewing a scientific matter, but I could not find where these journalists were getting their scientific information from. I dove into the reinforcing feedback loop of New York Times articles and chose what seemed to be a fact based in hard science explaining that “15 to 20 feet of sea level rise is inevitable” and will result in floods for many cities.

This hyperlink took me to a New York Times article by Tatiana Schlossberg, “Rising Sea Levels May Disrupt Lives of Millions, Study Says.” Fortunately this article actually took me to a website other than the New York Times, however it still did not seem to be a scientific article, but rather a letter summarizing multiple scientific publications. There were an upwards of forty citations linked on this letter, and it did seem to be scientifically valid.

While I would not trust using the New York times for writing my own research, or really assessing climate facts I do think there is a level of credibility to the article and it is useful in getting the basic information out to the public.

Works Cited:

Gillis, Justin. “Climate Change Is Complex. We’ve Got Answers to Your Questions.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 19 Sept. 2017, Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

“Justin Gillis articles analyzed.” Climate Feedback, Sierra Nevada Research Institute, 2017. Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

Hauer, Mathew E., et al. “Millions projected to be at risk from sea-Level rise in the continental United States.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 7, 2016, pp. 691–695.

Schlossberg, Tatiana. “Rising Sea Levels May Disrupt Lives of Millions, Study Says.” The New York Times, The New York Times Company, 14 Mar. 2016, Accessed 24 Sept. 2017.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged climate change, The New York Times | Comments Off

Evaluating Sources of Climate Change Information

Posted on September 24, 2017 by Marina Morton

Evaluating sources of information before using them helps ensure that the researcher finds trustworthy conclusions. My evaluation criteria help the climate change researcher determine how useful sources of information will be for their project relative to the existing body of relevant knowledge:

Does the author have relevant expertise? What is their intended purpose? Who is sponsoring this study or initiative?
Has the work been peer reviewed?
Who uses this source?
What do credible scientific organizations say?

In response to the 2015 Paris Agreement the Climate Scorecard team wanted to create a platform for holding countries accountable for honoring their commitments. The initiative serves as a launch pad for policy makers, NGOs, researchers, business leaders, and concerned citizens to increase GHG mitigation efforts using the specific ideas described on the website and in the reports. Two non-profit organizations—EarthAction and The Global Citizens Initiative (GCI)— coordinated this initiative. Campaigners of both organizations demonstrate a consistent commitment to developing global networks of people that value bottom-up engagement towards action for a more sustainable world. Similar and compatible values inspired the Climate Scorecard’s goal of holding countries accountable for honoring their commitments. The organization’s bias for environmental protection and democratic organization inspired Climate Scorecard to make emissions reduction strategies readily available to the online global community, and to provide a resource for calls to action.

The Climate Scorecard Reports publicize progress towards goals promised in the 2015 Paris Agreement by the top 25 greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting countries. The reports contain selected documents and researched profiles about countries on topics including policy evaluations, what leaders support or oppose climate change, climate change’s impacts on economic development, and countries investing successfully in renewable energy. The reports provide policymakers with information to potentially help them achieve their reductions targets.

For the purposes of this evaluation, I will evaluate Climate Scorecard Report #12 which profiles 22 replicable and scalable projects in the leading GHG emitting countries. These projects vary in topic from community mobilization to rural electrification and more.

Contributors of the Climate Scorecard reports include environmental graduate students and young professionals known as Country Coordinators who are responsible for building and supporting networks in their countries. Each country has its own coordinator which adds a level of quality control from country specialization. Ron Israel and Lois Barber, the editors of this report, both have relevant professional experience in international development work, adding a layer of expertise to guide and oversee the selection of content for the reports. Ron Israel, co-founder of GCI, has over 20 years of experience in leading international development projects in environmental protection, sustainable development, global governance, and citizen participation. Lois Barber, executive director of EarthAction has 30 years of experience working in nonprofits on citizen participation in policymaking on environment, peace, and justice issues. In addition to the Climate Scorecard team, university-based experts deal with technical questions related to new information for the website. The open data platform encourages everyone to share information about GHG mitigation projects in the top emitting countries. All content is subject to the judgment of a broad global audience which creates an international standard for public awareness and accountability to those contributing new information.

In this report, each project profile includes a link to learn more about the background of each Country Coordinator and most profiles contain additional references to learn more about the initiatives. Even more references for tracking progress towards the Paris Agreement pledges live on the individual webpages of each country on www.climatescorecard.org.

I believe that Climate Scoreboard is fairly trustworthy on the subject of climate change because its creators have demonstrated a deep commitment and understanding of development projects with significant environmental and human considerations. Their qualifications demonstrate career achievements in mobilizing useful information to concerned citizens and other agents of change around the world. Some of the Country Coordinators have more robust qualifications than others depending on level of education and previous work experience, so verifying the information in the reports with the additional references as well as other credible scientific organizations remains important.

This report serves as an idea hub and starting point for concerned citizens and various stakeholders, however, researchers using this source should use the information provided by Climate Scoreboard to narrow their focus for future research efforts. This report effectively highlights potential projects to help develop mitigation efforts but requires the researcher to follow up for further context surrounding each project’s implementation and success for replication in any other context.

Works Cited

Climate Scorecard Report #12: 22 Projects That Can Help The Paris Agreement Succeed, Edited by Lois Barber and Ron Israel, 2017. http://climatescorecard.org.

“Mission and Principles.” The Global Citizens’ Initiative(TGCI): Building A Sustainable World Community For All. www.theglobalcitizensinitiative.org/mission-and-principles. Accessed 23 Sep 2017.

“Who Are We?” EarthAction. www.earthaction.org/who_are_we.html. Accessed 23 Sep 2017.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged climate change, climate scorecard, credibility, credible, earthaction, Paris Agreement, report, research, sources, tgci, trustworthy | Comments Off

Risks of Taking Climate Change Uncertainties Too Seriously

Posted on September 23, 2017 by bencosmp

Climate change organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have presented evidence on how climate change will be affecting the human race negatively over the following decades. Due to an increase in population and human activity, scientists have become concerned with how much more the planet can take before parts of the planet become uninhabitable and human security is placed at risk. The only problem is that major, visible, changes have already began to take place. Due to higher global temperatures, ice caps in the North Pole have been melting at a very fast rate, which has led to flooding in many islands and cities, extreme weather events, and so on. Over the past decades scientists have put together models and graphs to show what has happened over the past centuries, and what can happen if nothing is done about the current climate situations.
The IPCC, which is composed of some of the best scientists in the world, releases a new report on the latest climate findings every five to seven years. The IPCC puts together their latest findings and presents it to political leaders around the world in order that they can influence policymakers to promote sustainability and take action to inform people on climate change. At this point, the IPCC has released five reports and each time they are able to expand on their previous findings, but if the governments know for sure that climate change is real and refused to do anything about it, it is frustrating for scientists to work so hard to prove something that is being taken as a joke by certain leaders.
At this point in time, the question is not whether climate change is real or not, it is what are nations willing to do to make sure that the global temperature does not continue to rise at the rate that it is rising. A lot of climate change deniers will point to the global cooling period that was influenced by natural weather event La Niña in 2008. Factors such as El Niño and La Niña occur naturally and make the temperatures higher or lower. Naturally, the earth does go through a natural warming and cooling cycle, but the cycle has left its path and increased sharply.

Graphs shows evidence of temperature drop over past few years.

Even if there is a lot of uncertainty about future climate, it does not mean that there is not enough evidence to conclude that climate change is real and it poses a threat to human security. In simple terms, the climate is changing due to mainly human activity. The temperatures are rising, the ice caps are melting, the ocean level is rising, coral briefs are disappearing, natural weather events are becoming more extreme, lands are becoming flooded, and so on. In addition, scientists are trying to explain that putting carbon into the atmosphere is not main problem, it is the rate at which Green House Gas emissions are occurring that will be a huge problem if nothing is done to slow down.
Although climate change models are not 100% correct, when it comes to the predictions, they are useful to show what can happen in the future due to past events and information. Just because one cannot prove exactly what will happen, it does not mean it will not happen. Models are used to present information. Scientists all around the world make them and many of them use data from different places and at different times. The overall trend that the models show is that the temperatures have risen over the past century at a prodigious rate.

“Hockey Stick” graph shows the sharp rise in temperature over the past century.

The importance of models is that they can show the opposite. Models and graphs present data of information that has been attained over thousands of years. The famous “hockey stick” graph published in 1998 by scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues showed the abnormal rise in temperature over the 21st century. Due to this graph, people that did not believe in climate change ridiculed him. However, the IPCC presented evidence from this graph in the 2001 report. Such models can be used to present valuable information, but unless world leaders decide to take action to combat climate change, and stop denying it, the earth will continue to get warmer. One cannot continue to say that the graphs are just predictions because they use real evidence.

Citation

“The IPCC: Who Are They and Why Do Their Climate Reports Matter?” Union of Concerned Scientists. Accessed September 22, 2017. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#.WcaDKZOGOFg.

“IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights.” IPCC AR5 Working Group I Highlights | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Accessed September 22, 2017. https://www.c2es.org/science-impacts/ipcc-summaries/fifth-assessment-report-working-group-1.

Posted in Risk and resilience, Uncategorized | Comments Off

Climate Models and Predictability

Posted on September 21, 2017 by brownemm

A NOAA data buoy in the Atlantic Ocean east of Boston, MA

One of the greatest problems with adjusting to climate change is the uncertainty in climate models. Climate scientists use models to demonstrate the statistical likelihood of certain futures in a certain region. They have evolved over time to include more data which has made them more accurate. Climate models can be hugely helpful in making decisions for the future because they can produce a range of possibilities for the future based on the factors they include.

They are especially helpful when the majority of models predict a small range of possibilities that can inform mitigation efforts. In order to best prepare for the future we need to have some idea of what it might look like. Policy makers and organizations can use these models to prepare for the futures that are most likely. For example, if a model predicts that a certain area will see an increase in annual rainfall, infrastructure can be changed to accommodate that.

However these models can vary in their accuracy. As models get more specific and focus on smaller areas, the information they provide can become harder to use because they can produce a wide variety of possible futures. This is also a problem because climate change take uncertainty in models as reason to doubt the basic facts of climate change. This is also difficult for decision making because predictions can vary widely and models can disagree. For example, when climate models focus in on Nepal they can vary hugely in their predictions. There are several reasons for this, especially in Nepal. The region is very unique because of the huge variation in elevation across the country so already the weather across the country varies greatly. Additionally, Nepal has a dry season and a wet season when most of the rain falls in a short amount of time. Yearly rain predictions don’t help much to say when the rain might occur and where within the country. The climate models predict anything from a lot more rain to more droughts and a large range of possible temperature increases. This complicates decisions that can be made because it is hard to know which future to prepare for.

Mitigation efforts are going to be expensive and in some cases traumatizing, especially when people decide to migrate, people aren’t going to want to invest in changes if they aren’t shown sufficient evidence. Not only might politicians and organizations make ill informed decisions but they might not make any decisions at all. Additionally, weaker evidence for a certain future will provide more challenges for people trying to implement a certain plan. For example, politicians in the United States who are trying to implement climate change mitigation strategies are constantly met with opponents who say that there simply isn’t enough evidence to warrant spending huge sums of money on mitigation. This goes to show that while climate models can be very helpful, they can also have their shortcomings. It is important to keep in mind that being less helpful in certain regions does not make them illegitimate sources of information in others and that they should be analyzed within the context of the geography of the regions they are describing.

Posted in Risk and resilience | Tagged climate model, decision making, uncertainty, variability | Comments Off