 |
 |
| CIRES' Annual, Institute-wide Symposium [ Home | Poster Submission | Agenda | Posters | Archives ] |
|
Science Rendezvous > Posters Striking back: A case study in addressing a skeptic's public assertions about sea ice data Walt Meier, Stephanie Renfrow, and Mark Serreze NSIDC The increasing visibility of climate change science—in international reports like the IPCC's, in day-to-day discussion on blogs like RealClimate.org, and in coverage by the mass media—has brought more exposure to the science behind the consensus. Some skeptics have become increasingly savvy about the availability of scientific information from public institutions like the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). What happens when a smart but nonscientific skeptic skims scientific data and publishes his findings online, confusing the public and adding to the false 'debate'? We present a case study of just such a scenario, which took place during the Arctic sea ice melt season in 2008. A skeptic discovered that NSIDC and the University of Illinois both offer near-real-time images showing sea ice conditions; to him, the images did not tell the same story. He thought he saw proof that NSIDC was tampering with the data to tell a false story of sea ice decline and climate change, and he took no time in publicizing his assertions online in a popular information technology magazine. What the skeptic in question didn't realize is the complexity of how science works. Hundreds of scientists at different institutions around the world may study the same data. With different processing, scientists may report different results. These differences are usually small, with trends and major findings generally in agreement and the kinks worked out through publication in peer-reviewed journals. But to the non-scientist, and especially to the skeptic, this 'disagreement' may be a source of doubt and confusion about climate change. Our role in communicating and protecting the process of real science threatened to expand. Should we go with our first instinct and ignore his assertions as scientifically invalid, hunkering down in our traditional scientific role? Or further expose ourselves by contacting the author and attempting an exchange? In this presentation, we'll take you from our decision to interact with the skeptic writer through the retraction he posted on his article. We'll also offer insights on how to decide which instances of misrepresentation to address, which ones to let go, and how to begin rethinking your role in communicating what science is all about. |
