User:Adolfon16/sandbox

Contribution #1 (in Politicization of science)

In February 2007, the George W. Bush administration claimed the United States was doing better than the European Union when it came to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This turned out to be a false claim, and a prime example of cherry picking scientific evidence that goes against the scientific consensus. On February 7, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow boasted about the United State's advantage over the EU. Due to the lack of evidence for such a claim, later that day the White House website posted an “Open Letter on the President’s Position on Climate Change," signed by James L. Connaughton and John Marburger. This letter contained evidence that supported Snow's claims, however, the clear flaw is that the carbon dioxide emissions indicator in their data was used to extrapolate to all greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the time period in which this data was shown was also selectively chosen to misrepresent the data that can be more accurately calculated using the right methods.

[1] Cook, John, et al. “Consensus on Consensus: a Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, 2016, p. 048002., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.

[2] "U.S. Emissions". Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2017-10-22. Retrieved 2020-12-18.

Contribution #2

The role of scientists as advisors for the government has been a common practice in the modern world, and as the problems policy makers face become more complex by the day, society in general is showing a tendency to lean towards what the scientific authorities recommend. This, however, is becoming an even bigger point of controversy when it comes to critical topics such as climate change. In a study, "The legitimacy of environmental scientists in the public sphere" by Gordon Gauchat, Timothy O’Brien, and Oriol Mirosa, the researchers conclude that attitudes about environmental scientists as policy advisers are highly politicized. Their results demonstrate that, to be perceived by the public as a reputable policy advisor, the public's perception of their integrity and understanding weigh more strongly than their agreement with scientific consensus.

Edit Summary:


 * Copied from Politicization of science
 * Added needed relevant information, and two reliable sources.

[3] Spruijt, Pita, et al. “Roles of Scientists as Policy Advisers on Complex Issues: A Literature Review.” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 40, 2014, pp. 16–25., doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002.

[4] Gauchat, Gordon, et al. “The Legitimacy of Environmental Scientists in the Public Sphere.” Climatic Change, vol. 143, no. 3-4, 2017, pp. 297–306., doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2015-z.

Comments from Instructor:


 * After submitting my first main contribution, my instructor pointed two important things about my sources. One, I used sources that were already on the original article, and two, very important, is that I used a source that is not outside of the government's influence. This is important because the article I am contributing to is about the use of scientific evidence as a political tool. Although my resource is an article written by Kristie Ross, the fact it was published in a government's website seems counterintuitive towards my goal. Therefore, I will look for more reliable sources regarding these issues.
 * Another point made by my instructor is that I could expand more on what I am talking about in the paragraph.
 * I also forgot to press Publish after writing my contributions the first time around, this time I will do that.

Persoanl thoughts:


 * I don't think I have to write much else for contribution one. I can definitely expand some points, but I think if I add any more information it may become saturated and lose the focal point.
 * I need to find new sources, I will list them below as I use them on my contributions.

New sources:

[1] Cook, John, et al. “Consensus on Consensus: a Synthesis of Consensus Estimates on Human-Caused Global Warming.” Environmental Research Letters, vol. 11, no. 4, 2016, p. 048002., doi:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002.

[2] "U.S. Emissions". Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. 2017-10-22. Retrieved 2020-12-18.

[3] Spruijt, Pita, et al. “Roles of Scientists as Policy Advisers on Complex Issues: A Literature Review.” Environmental Science & Policy, vol. 40, 2014, pp. 16–25., doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002.

[4] Gauchat, Gordon, et al. “The Legitimacy of Environmental Scientists in the Public Sphere.” Climatic Change, vol. 143, no. 3-4, 2017, pp. 297–306., doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2015-z.