How to Critically Review a Book/Article on Climate
Change
Bruce Parker
November 2010
The following table gives some examples of what to look for when critically reading articles on climate change:
|
The writing should
not |
Example (references
listed below) |
|
Take quotes out of context |
(?) MIT study on the costs to American families of climate change legislation (needs to be expanded) |
|
Misquote |
(Need example) |
|
Deliberately misrepresenting another person’s intent |
(1) Page 2 Al Gore’s comment “If Greenland were to break up…” does not mean that Al Gore thinks that it’s possible for Greenland to significantly (>5% mass loss) break up in the next 10 years, yet Patrick Michaels expends considerable time critiquing it |
|
Use time scales inappropriate for the data |
“The Earth has not warmed since 1998” – True statement but not relevant. When looking at trends, one needs to examine 30-50 years (at least since significant accumulation of greenhouse gases) |
|
Use a single event to try to disprove something |
(1) Pages 106-107 – Discussion of the Helheim Glacier – Patrick Michaels uses the fact that the glacier advanced in 2006 to try to discredit “Greenland is melting”. However, 2006 was the anomaly and the glacier is continuing its retreat (?) “The earth has not warmed since 1998” |
|
Try to project into the future based on recent historical data (depends on what is being projected) |
(1) Page xii – Pacific Northwest Snowpack – What is relevant is the change since global warming started (decrease since 1950), not the last 100 years (not much change); |
|
Does not select the most appropriate measurement for the “phenomenon” |
(1) Page xii – Pacific Northwest Snowpack – graph shows “percentage of snowpack in maximum month”. More appropriate measurements include (a) water content, (b) total precipitation falling in the winter (probably increasing), (c) total runoff by month (flooding in the spring, not as much available in August, when it is needed), and (d) likely decrease of snowpack due to warmer temperatures |
|
Used facts that are not relevant |
(2) “According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.” True statement for the date of the article. But the Arctic is always frozen over in February, so the statement is totally irrelevant. What’s most appropriate is the minimum volume of ice during the year. |
|
“Cherry-pick” the data |
|
|
Use graphs of data for a single location without explicitly stating that the data is typical or atypical for the general area (the assumption being that the data is typical) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The writing should cover the most relevant “facts” for the phenomena |
|
|
|
|
|
A critical review should indicate if the theory being advanced has been superseded or is no longer relevant |
(1) Pages 103-107. Patrick Michaels tries to discredit the “Greenland is melting” by citing land/air temperature data. Since his book was written, it has been shown that the melting is being caused by warmer sea temperatures. |
|
(1) |
Patrick Michael’s “Climate of extremes: global warming science they don't want you to know” |
|
(2) |
George Will in a Washington Post op-ed Feb 15, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|