Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
A Queensland physicist’s war on global warming sceptics has seen him win the 2011 Eureka Prize for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge, reports environment editor Sandi Keane.
John Cook, author of the effective anti-climate-misinformation website SkepticalScience.com has won the 2011 Eureka Prize for advancement of Climate Change Knowledge (image courtesy Climate Change Task Force)
John Cook’s Skeptical Science website continues to attract international scientific acclaim and monthly visits of over half a million. An app conversion made number two on the UK Guardian’s Top Ten green apps.
A guide and a handbook have also materialised in quick succession over the past year.
And if that’s not enough to send the climate deniers running to the bunkers, a new weapon has been added to Skeptical Science’s arsenal — a ‘Twitter-bot’. This creation is a collaboration with software developer Nigel Leck, which ingeniously acts like a reverse search engine. Every five minutes, it patrols Twitter searching for common myths on climate change, firing off a volley of peer-reviewed scientific evidence in rapid response.
Cook is a Research Fellow in climate communications at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland.
His war on global-warming deniers began in 2007 with his website, Skeptical Science. His idea was simple: “to make peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority”.
Cook said he chose the name “Skeptical Science” because he believed the word had been misappropriated by the deniers.
“True skeptics seek the truth and the skeptics we know deny it.”
This is how he saw the website work:
“The sceptic arguments would be matched with easily understood quick, fact-based rebuttals, backed up by the latest, peer-reviewed science — with a link so visitors could verify the credibility of the source.”
Skeptical Science received international recognition in 2010 when Melburnian, Adam Kierce of Shine Technologies, converted the website into an App. Its “Top Ten” rating by The Guardian resulted in over 72,000 downloads.
As a result, Skeptical Science’s popularity skyrocketed, with monthly hits of over half a million and an international reach of twenty languages.
A growing list of science and academic experts – Michael Mann and Professor Naomi Oreskes among them – have endorsed Cook’s Skeptical Science as the “go to” web resource on climate.
Last month, David Suzuki, joined them:
“There are many credible sources of information… One place to start is at skepticalscience.com.”
Cook’s arsenal continues to grow. Following the Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism came the recent Debunking Handbook, both available for download from the website. The book, Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand, with a foreword by Professor Naomi Oreskes and co-authored with Haydn Washington, was published last year.
Academic institutes around the world have taken up Cook’s resource:
“A few different college courses are now using our site in their curriculum – for example Portland State University [Debunking Handbook] and Suffolk County Community College [website].
“Suffolk Country Community College’s Professor Scott Mandia gave his students the project of reviewing the guide and many of their comments were incorporated into the final version.”
Shine Technologies has followed its app with a Skeptical Science Firefox Add-on that has two major functions.
It interfaces as you surf websites and blogs, checking arguments and responding instantly with both short rebuttals from Skeptical Science as well as the full URL.
Its secondary role is an interactive one and offers a way to join Cook’s war on global warming deniers. As you browse the web, the Add-on allows you to submit climate links and peer-reviewed papers to Skeptical Science’s data base.
Cook encourages us to get involved:
“Join the crowd sourcing effort … and you’ll make this data collecting geek very happy.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
10 Comments
Another good article Sandi. If only there were more John Cooks in the world and less Ian Plimers; it would be a far better place for us and our grandchildren.
My view is different.
If only there were more Ian Plimers in the world and less John Cooks; it would be a far better place for us and our grandchildren.
Colin: Unlike Plimer who was earning $350,00 from the mining industry BEFORE he was invited on to Gina Rinehart’s board (which should take him up to just under half a $million… no pressure there Colin), Cook receives no payment for his website and makes no requests for donations. That’s what you do if you genuinely care about the future of your grandchildren.
Someone will start a website – a Register of Crimes against Future Generations. Plimer and the rest of the greedy miners who care more about locking in profits than leaving the world a safe place for their grandchildren – will have their names emblazoned on it. So when their grandchildren ask, “what did you do in the war”, Cook will have something to be proud of. Not so Plimer. His family will have to live with his shame. Hope it was worth the money!
Sandi, your arguments are childish and insulting. Mentioning Plimer and Gina Rinehart in the same sentence to me puts them both in a positive light. (Miners need geologists, and we all need miners.)
I’m sure we all care about our grandchildren (except for the dark greens who aim to eliminate the scourge of children from the world.) Where your side fails is in debating what is in the best interests of our grandchildren. You simply wish to impose your vision without our consent. Typically totalitarian.
I hope you didn’t use electricity, or metal, or plastic or were wearing clothes or jewellery, or had eaten food not picked in your own back yard when you wrote your comment. All products of mining … of the devil him (or her) self.
There will be no shame for Plimer. Plimer’s family will be able to hold their heads up as descendents of someone who had the courage of his convictions to stand and argue against the totalitarians. You don’t have to listen to him.
P.S. There was a war? Did I miss it? Was anybody hurt?
Colin: and your response to Dave Clarke? Not childish and insulting? A man who has been bestowed the greatest honour in science in this country????
Sandi, I have no idea who Dave Clarke is or was or might be. He simply wrote something I thought wrong and I responded because I have read many of the things written by both Plimer and Cook and came to the conclusion I much rather trust Plimer – so I said so.
My response to you was actually – to you and your meanderings in your comment.
P.S. What’s “the greatest honour in science in this country”?
the Eureka prize is the crowning glory for any scientist. Google it. His award was for the web site He’s a physicist. When Dave Clarke says he trusts him, he means he trusts the information. Cook’s website. It lists only the most credible peer-reviewed studies by actual climate scientists – which he isn’t nor is Plimer. Plimer is paid by the miners to confuse people like you. The skeptic debate only takes place here in Oz and USA – where the mining lobby has more power than any democratically elected government. There is no debate in UK or Europe.
Perhaps you need some more instruction in simple writing, Sandi. Your comment 9 Apr@10.26pm only mentions one person, Clarke. I was confused as to what award Clarke had won, but I see now you meant Cook.
I wouldn’t put the same emphasis on the Eureka Awards as you, but nevertheless I have to disagree on the value of Cook’s website and his own ability in arguing (as he does) that we are warming the world catastrophically. He may well put “peer-reviewed studies by actual climate scientists” on his site but he doesn’t put “peer-reviewed studies by actual climate scientists” that he doesn’t agree with on his site, which kinda makes him biased.
Try this for starters http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/a-modest-proposal-to-skeptical-science/
Yes I know you probably wouldn’t be a fan of WUWT but it at least posts articles from people with contrary views and posts peer reviewed papers from all sides. So, just for a change read about your hero before you pass judgement.
And when you stop using the products of mining you can be more sanctimonious about their evil. You haven’t, have you? And you won’t, will you?
Sceptics’ case melts more
Gerard Wynn
April 6, 2012
Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/sceptics-case-melts-more-20120406-1wg8m.html#ixzz1rg6xnzsb
A clutch of recent studies reinforces evidence that people are causing climate change and suggests debate should now move on to a more precise understanding of its impact on humans.
The reports, published in various journals in recent weeks, add new detail to the theory of climate change and by implication cast contrarians in a more desperate light.
Advertisement: Story continues below
To be clear: there’s nothing wrong with doubting climate change; but doubts based on ignorance, a political bias or fossil fuel lobbying don’t help.
The basics, well known, are that rising greenhouse gas emissions are almost certainly responsible for raising global average surface temperatures (by about 0.17 degrees Celsius a decade from 1980-2010), in turn leading to sea level rise (of about 2.3 millimetres a year from 2005-2010) and probably causing more frequent bouts of extreme heatwaves and possibly more erratic rainfall.
Vast uncertainties remain about the risk of runaway warming, and the urgency: for example, about what level of greenhouse gas emissions will cause how much sea level rise this century.
The latest studies suggest firmer evidence for a human finger print, for example showing that pollution is largely responsible for a slow cycle in sea surface temperatures in the last century.
Recent studies also cast more light on trends, for example showing that the world has seen hotter years since 1998 (previously held by some as a record); and presenting firmer forecasts for 2050.
And others show lessons from the end of the last Ice Age: for example that rises in carbon dioxide preceded (and, by implication, caused) warming; and that sea levels at one point were rising by several metres a century.
None of these are individually particular clinchers – the problem was already clear – but collectively they pin down uncertainty seized on by sceptics.
Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/climate-change/sceptics-case-melts-more-20120406-1wg8m.html#ixzz1rg6sY5Qe
Like Plimer, Watts, the skeptic, is no climate scientist:
Watts admits “I’m not a degreed climate scientist” on his WUWT profile and his primary credential appears to be an American Meteorological Society Seal of Approval. This does not mean that Watts is “AMS Certified” as some sources have inaccurately claimed. The AMS Seal of Approval is a discontinued credential that does not require a bachelor’s or higher degree in atmospheric science or meteorology. (DeSmogBlog)