Missing on this Blog: Peer-Reviewed Climate Science

A friend clued me in that the prestigious Science Museum of Minnesota's blog seems to be largely written by Science Museum staff who don't appear to be up to speed on climate change science. I've been buzzing through Science Buzz and it is clear that some buzzers may not know how to find peer-reviewed science and scientific statements on climate change. Given that your project is funded by the National Science Foundaiton, it seems very important that your staff posters get up to speed on science.

So, I offer a few helpful links:

Climate scientists answering questions about climate science, at

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, at

Climate literacy for educators and students, at

Dr. Stephen Schneider's website on climate change science, at

As well, your staff may want to review the many statements authored by professional scientific bodies on climate change, including those of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological get the idea.

It's a shame that the best science education institution in the state doesn't require that its Science Buzz staff get up to speed on cimate science.

J. Drake Hamilton
Science Policy Director
Fresh Energy

Your Comments, Thoughts, Questions, Ideas

JGordon's picture
JGordon says:

Did we just get served? I feel like we may have just been served, except I didn't see an "Oh, snap!" anywhere in this post. I'll read it again.

Anyway, thanks much for the resources. I think we do try to back our posts up with legitimate science sources, but more never hurt.


J. Andrew Gordon

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 3:15pm
Thor's picture
Thor says:

Thanks for the links J. Drake Hamilton. And remember, this forum is open to everyone to contribute to the posts. You're welcome to comment on specific issues as they arise. Checking your user profile, I see that you haven't taken advantage of that feature in the past.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 3:20pm
J. Drake Hamilton's picture

Hello Science Museum,

I hope you will have your paid staff pay closer attention to peer-reviewed climate science.

Thank you for your attention.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 3:25pm
ARTiFactor's picture
ARTiFactor says:

Nicely done post, J. You have our attention.

I look forward to this coming year and hopefully a change in our policies regarding climate science. Links to peer reviewed articles are always good.

Another challenge will be to convince readers to grant authority to this process rather than to "faith based" leadership. I get really frustrated with many of my friends and relatives that reject any science that refutes their biblical beliefs.

I signed up today with the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science(COPUS)/Year of Science 2009. We live in interesting times and have some important tasks.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 4:17pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

The parallels between certain climate-change activists and religious zealots have been widely noted and discussed.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 4:46pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

wow, thanks for pointing that out to the museum. glad that the blog is quite open like this which makes it able to allow people like you to update us all on more current developments in certain fields. thank you for sharing the links. its never a bad thing to learn more and have more information from a variety of sources to current science issues for science is quite open like that.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 4:17pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

It is important to note that “peer reviewed” does not mean “proven” or even necessarily “right.” It just means that the work has been read by colleagues who found it worthwhile and not obviously flawed, not that they have been able to repeat the experiment and confirm the observations.

It is important to note that articles presenting a variety of views on different aspects of global warming have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

It is important to note that the Nobel Peace Prize is not a peer-reviewed scientific award.

It is important to note that over 650 scientific peers have come out against the IPCC report.

It is important to note that our first and I believe longest discussion of climate change focused on the movie An Inconvenient Truth, which was not peer reviewed.

It is important that we all have peaceful holidays, full of good will to all.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 4:36pm
curious's picture
curious says:

noted. as a reader of science, one always has to keep one's mind open to the fact that so much of written science is of course not the truth but the results of certain experiments amongst certain groups/scientists...never the exact truth...and experts are always only experts through the "accepted" path (education, experience, publications) which doesn't always mean what they write is the absolute truth. don't always be too quick to take things at face-value, especially for science!

also thanks for clarifying the quoted peer-view aspect.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 4:56pm
Joe's picture
Joe says:

There has been a lively, and I think often well referenced through links, discussion about climate change on this site - and that's great. We love it when people talk about science! But I would have to agree with Thor and invite you to post your own article on climate change that is backed up by the resources you list - we'd welcome it!

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 5:03pm
Joe's picture
Joe says:

And while we're on the subject, here's a newish article from Scientific American (NOT a peer reviewed journal) about the top ten places already affected by climate change.

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 5:26pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I think when something like this becomes politicized it loses much of its objectivity. Do you think J. Drake Hamilton has an agenda?

posted on Tue, 12/23/2008 - 7:23pm
ARTiFactor's picture
ARTiFactor says:

To get a glimpse of her agenda you might look at this 35 page PDF titled A Low Carbon Future: Global Warming Solutions for Minnesota or go to the web site.

Fresh Energy promotes public policy to create an energy system that sustains our economy, our people, and our planet.

posted on Wed, 12/24/2008 - 10:01am
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

I got the impression that J. Drake thinks this website is already politicized. But maybe it's impossible to hold any view on global warming without automatically being associated with one political view or another. It's a highly politicized issue, and science, unfortunately, doesn't stand outside of the debate; science is used by both sides, and yet is always presented as if it is the objective answer to the issue.

posted on Wed, 12/24/2008 - 6:14pm
Anonymous's picture
Anonymous says:

Is Gene a Science Museum employee? Are his paid blogs really designed to get more youth interested in pursuing science careers, or shouldn't he just be on talk radio?

posted on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 10:25am
mdr's picture
mdr says:

It's very fortunate that science allows for dissenting opinion. Otherwise we'd probably still be rubbing two sticks together to heat our caves.

posted on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:27pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

I do not see the two as mutually exclusive.

posted on Sun, 12/28/2008 - 6:32pm
DO's picture
DO says:

That list of "650 scientists who don't agree with global warming" never quite seems to see the light of day. It is also important to know that 4000+ scientists endorse the report. Finally, ther are manyscientists who know nothing about global climate change although they may know a great deal about opinion research or physics or aeronautics. Global warmming has been documented i many ways although you can still argue if it is due to the activities of mankind alone or in part.

posted on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 5:10pm
Gene's picture
Gene says:

The list of 650 dissenting scientists is available here. The link to this page was embedded in the page I linked to earlier. Perhaps I should have made a more direct link.

Science is not democratic. It doesn't matter how many people support a position; what matters is what the facts say. (This is why any discussion of "consensus" is ridiculous. Science does not run on consensus; it runs on experiment and observation.) A not-insignificant number of scientists have reviewed the facts and come to the conclusion that climate change is far more complicated than the simple story of "humans pollute -- pollution creates global warming -- this is a crisis."

Climate is an extraordinarily complex system. (Another reason to be suspicious of any simple stories told about it.) It involves physics, chemistry, astronomy, fluid dynamics, paleontology, and a host of other disciplines. Scientists in any of these areas may weigh in on the subject.

Finally, I don't believe any honest debater would dispute your final sentence -- the globe did warm between 1980 and 1998. That is well nigh irrefutable. Why it did so; whether it will continue to do so; what this means for life on Earth; and what, if anything, we can / should do about it, remain debatable propositions. On this we agree.

posted on Sun, 12/28/2008 - 6:31pm
Michael's picture
Michael says:

annyeonghaseyo. ^^ i think wolves are awesome. yeah. and like, totally pretty you know? :D their fur is really thick and their eyes are pretty.

posted on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 6:34pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <h3> <h4> <em> <i> <strong> <b> <span> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <object> <embed> <param> <sub> <sup>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may embed videos from the following providers vimeo, youtube. Just add the video URL to your textarea in the place where you would like the video to appear, i.e.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Images can be added to this post.

More information about formatting options