Good Morning DC

By Sheril Kirshenbaum | January 5, 2010 7:50 am

Picture 29This morning I’m back in the District to address the Federation of Earth Science Information Partners (ESIP) about ways to improve the communication of science. With members representing over 90 organizations including NOAA, NASA, and USGS, they work to collect, interpret, and develop applications for Earth observation information. It’s my first talk of 2010 and I’m very much looking forward to spending the day with such a neat interdisciplinary group.

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Travel

Comments (56)

  1. SLC

    A little OT but the article linked to below should be of interest relative to the discussion of global warming. Not surprisingly, the global warming denialists are screaming bloody murder at the prospect that the information gathered from CIA surveillance satellites might undermine their lies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/science/earth/05satellite.html?hpw

  2. Sean McCorkle

    Looks like an interesting meeting – can you tell us about it afterwards? Hope your talk goes well.

  3. Looking forward to the TED video . . . .

  4. moptop

    OK, you have called skeptics “deniers” and “liars” with a link to the NYT that doesn’t seem to support your case. I don’t mind using hard language myself, but usually I will back it up with examples. So where are the “denialists” screaming “bloody murder”? And how has this “undermined” any “lies”?

    If the data is openly available to all, and any papers written against them can be validated, then the vast majority of skeptics, except maybe the bible thumping kind, will be all for this.

    What skeptics want are more accurate sensors and more information that is consistent and not open to fudges. This sounds like a good place to look.

  5. moptop

    Sorry, the last post was addressed to SLC. However, if you are looking for ways to communicate science, his post might be a good object lesson in how not to go about it.

  6. Neuro-conservative

    ways to improve the communication of science

    Rule #1: Don’t talk about global warming in the middle of a record cold snap.

    Poor Al Gore can never seem to get that one straight.

  7. bilbo

    I can counter your regional cherry-pick with one of my own, NC. They’re having all-time record high temperatures for the season in Bulgaria right now, y’know.

    In light of your typical “weather is climate” mistake, this might be an appropriate time to slap you around a bit since it shows a foolish misunderstanding of climate change on your part. But a denialist’s mind is closed to such things….

  8. bilbo

    What skeptics want are more accurate sensors and more information that is consistent and not open to fudges. This sounds like a good place to look.

    Pictures of ice are “more accurate sensors” than thermometers and centuries-long climate records? Wow. No wonder you think climate change is all a sham.

    And to think I’ve been using that clumsy old thermometer all this time to tell how cold it is outside! Why, I could have just been setting my digital camera to “macro,” snapping a few shots of the frost outside, and boom! – climate science.

  9. Jon

    Don’t talk about global warming in the middle of a record cold snap.

    Hey, the experts told me the population of the earth was going up. But I turn to the obituary column and it’s two freaking pages long!! Boy are those population experts dumb.

  10. moptop

    wow bilbo, you sure told me. Could you give me an example of a “centuries long climate record” that shows that today’s warming is “unprecedented”? Here’s your chance to smack me down real good. Don’t blow it. All you need is one good one. Shouldn’t be too difficult a burden to bear to save the planet. Just prove one assertion which you yourself made. If not for me, since I am irredeemable in your sight, but for the sake of any open minded readers of this thread.

  11. Jon

    What’s your definition of “proof” moptop? (Never mind the fact that “proof” in science is problematic.) Let me guess. You move the goalposts to whatever definition allows you to keep arguing? (Hey, haven’t wee seen this movie before?)

  12. moptop

    Sorry Jon, I looked for the word “proof” in my posts and didn’t find it. What is your point? In the above comment #10, “proof” would consist of a reference to a “centuries long” temperature record that shows that today’s warming is unprecedented. I don’t know how much easier I could make it for you.

  13. moptop

    “You move the goalposts to whatever definition allows you to keep arguing?”

    Don’t worry, I am sure than any open minded readers would quickly see through such a tactic.

  14. Jon

    In the above comment #10, “proof” would consist of a reference to a “centuries long” temperature record that shows that today’s warming is unprecedented.

    We’ve already posted those references on this blog–in conversations you’ve participated in, as a matter of fact. If you cared, you would have remembered. You don’t even need to rely on the “controversial” tree ring proxies. There are several other proxies that have nothing to do with tree rings.

  15. gillt

    moptop: “Could you give me an example of a “centuries long climate record” that shows that today’s warming is “unprecedented”?”

    Information on 19th century climate (and before) comes from a number of disparate sources.

    Climate records from all of New England and nearby states dates back to at least the mid 19th century and as far back as the 17th. All these records overlap in the 19th century which allows scientists to create a spatially and temporally detailed map of the entire century. Combine this with 20th century records and you have a 200 year record of climate variability. And that’s just the northeastern US.

    What does this record tell us? That the past 150 years have seen the most severe cold and warm periods and drought and wet periods over the past 1000 years.

    Moptop’s tired and predictable whine will come in the form of some concern–say cooling caused by local reduced ozone–pretending its a novel and non-trivial issue that refutes everything. This only works when you pretend you’re smarter than everyone else. Overestimating your own intelligence while underestimating those who spend their lives in research is how you maintain your willful ignorance.

  16. Sean

    Don’t spend any time arguing with Bilbo. In a previous debate on climate change he claimed that the climate change “deniers” on this blog “still think that tobacco has no link with cancer” and when I challenged him to support his baseless accusation, he literally fabricated a quote which anyone can prove (by searching this site in google) was totally made up to make “climate change deniers” look like they are generally anti-science.

    You can read all about it here:

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/12/09/how-the-global-warming-story-changed-disastrously-due-to-climategate/

  17. gillt

    Climate change denialism and tobacco causes cancer denialism stems from industry-generated propaganda. So it is a distinction without a difference.

    What’s shocking is that the average joe and jane who buys into the pablum has nothing to gain from his or her denialism but much to lose.

  18. moptop

    Jon, I demolished your link in the “other thread.”

    You claimed that it showed unprecedented warming without tree rings. While you showed many graphs that ended at the inception of the Little Ice Age, your long term constructions were all graphed together. The first one I looked at was Moberg et all 2005, which is based on tree rings, and the debunked Briffa and Jones reconstructions.

    Gilit,
    All of those temp records are adjusted by amounts greater than the amount of AGW they purport to show. See climategate.

  19. gillt

    You mean temps adjusted for station exposure? If that’s the case then you’re out of touch with 3 year old research: Peterson, 2006.

    The latest paper which overviews the temp biases and their removal is Menne, et al. 2009.

    If you’re talking about something else then lets see your evidence.

  20. moptop

    gilit, that will take a some time to check out, so congratulation on actually bringing a weapon to the fight, unlike Jon. Get back to you tonight or tomorrow.

  21. gillt

    Yes, please get back to me on the accuracy of your own claims.

  22. bilbo

    Ever notice how denialists have an overwhleming tendency to get on other threads and claim that the’ve won past arguments? Something to think about: If you have to tell someone you’ve won an argument, you probably weren’t even close.

    For Sean: Are you seriously bandying around the old tobacco thread again? If I recall correctly (and if I’m thinking of the same thread), you made some wild assumption about me lying and having no evidence to back myself up. I provided evidence. You said you couldn’t find it on Google and thus it was false (laughable in and of itself). Then suddenly a bunch of other folks called you out and provided evidence similar to mine from a bewildering number of sources. You fell into stunned silence and left the thread. At least that’s the thread I’m thinking of. It must be opposites day in Denialist Bizarro World if I got proved of “fabricating” anything there.

    For moptop: Did I ever claim that a “centuries old climate record” showed that “today’s warming was unprecedented” in this thread? Nope. Here’s what I said:

    Pictures of ice are “more accurate sensors” than thermometers and centuries-long climate records? Wow. No wonder you think climate change is all a sham.

    And to think I’ve been using that clumsy old thermometer all this time to tell how cold it is outside! Why, I could have just been setting my digital camera to “macro,” snapping a few shots of the frost outside, and boom! – climate science.

    For the record, that’s called “sarcasm. I was making fun of a very foolish statement on your part, where it appeared you were just trying to sound intelligent and objective. (You weren’t even close, by the way).

    You and Sean are both playing the “pin a position on your opponent that your opponent hasn’t himself claimed” game.

    That’s wonderfully classic denialism!

  23. moptop

    OK, looks like I am banned for playing too rough, I guess. Or my comment is stuck somewhere.

    Anyway, links please gillt. Google Scholar comes up with unrelated papers for both of those, ornithology and allergies.

  24. Liberal Elite

    @ bilbo #22:

    Wasn’t Sean the same denialist who made the claim that scientists use math and statistics “just to fool normal people” or something like that? Maybe it was somebody else.

    I always knew my math teachers were up to no good.

  25. moptop

    You are not very bright, are you bilbo?

  26. moptop

    I apologize for that last, bilbo. You seem bright enough. You should maybe inform yourself a little more on issues besides the politics of global warming.

  27. gillt

    still waiting moptop

  28. bilbo

    How so, moptop? That’s quite the damning accusation with absolutely zilch to back it up.

    That’s interesting, isn’t it? I make a comment on another thread about denialists not backing their wild accusations up, and here you are, embodying my thesis. Thanks!

    If I didn’t know better (which, according to you, I certainly don’t), I’d assume you were out of anything useful to say and were just desperate to stir the pot in whatever way you can find. That’s kind of like climate denialism in a nutshell…

  29. Liberal Elite

    gillt’s correct, moptop. Do you have anything useful to say or are you just trying to deflect. gillt demanded some evidence from you. Let’s see it!

    If you’ve got a good case, that shouldn’t be too hard to do. Right?

  30. gillt

    Menne, et al. 2009
    The U.S. Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data, Version 2
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2613.1&ct=1

    Peterson, 2006
    EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL BIASES IN AIR TEMPERATURE CAUSED
    BY POOR STATION LOCATIONS
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/papers/200686ams3.10tpfree.pdf

    Here’s some more information that your google-searching bias might not have uncovered.

    A New Globally Complete Monthly Historical Gridded Mean Sea Level Pressure Dataset (HadSLP2): 1850–2004
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/10.1175/BAMS-87-8-1073?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3937.1

    Improvements to NOAA’s Historical Merged Land–Ocean Surface Temperature Analysis (1880–2006)
    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/10.1175/BAMS-87-8-1073?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI2100.1

  31. moptop

    gillt,
    Thanks, I will read them.

    Not sure why they didn’t come up with google scholar.

  32. gillt

    moptop, explain yourself here:

    “All of those temp records are adjusted by amounts greater than the amount of AGW they purport to show”

    I can’t make any sense of it.

    What credible scientist made this assertion and where is the science/evidence from where this assertion was made published?

    Failing to hold your own assertions to the same standard is an open invitation to comparisons with puny intellects.

  33. bilbo

    moptop’s stark inability to support his accusations with evidence is quickly placing him in the same tribe as the rest of the denialists: able to talk a big game, but ultimately impotent when it comes to proving what he’s claiming.

    I expect we’ll be seeing either an ad hominem or goalpost shift from him next as another attemtp at deflection.

  34. moptop

    Well, I looked at one, the one from the UK Met office. Oddly, there has been news from them since ClimateGate:

    “The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails.

    The new analysis of the data will take three years, meaning that the Met Office will not be able to state with absolute confidence the extent of the warming trend until the end of 2012.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece

    Cat is out of the bag buddy.

    I will look at more of your links as time permits.

  35. bilbo

    …but you know, we can just forget that there are at least two to three other, independent temperature records out there saying the exact same thing as the UK data.

    Anyone else notice how moptop came to the blog arguing that global temps. are warming, but just that it wasn’t influenced by humans? Now he’s switched to arguing that global temps aren’t warming at all.

    Which moptop are we dealing with here exactly? I only see one constant between the two: they change their positions like a fart in the wind to try and adapt to the argument of the moment.

    Pathetic.

  36. gillt

    Moptop, first address your as-yet unsubstantiated drivel and then I’ll discuss the the MET Office with you.

    Okay!

  37. PJ

    Well, moptop, what are you going to do? It looks like I now make the third person to demand some evidence and substantiation to your skeptic arguments. It’s been two days now since gillt called you out, and instead of manning up and simply supporting yourself, you’ve tried desperately to change the subject and even thrown some personal attacks out in attempts at deflection like a coward. It’s not working, though. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?!

    To me, when someone can’t back their words up, that means they’re full of bullshit. Prove us wrong.

  38. moptop

    gillt, it pains me to write this, but in fact it appears that I was mistaken on the adjustments exceeding the warming trend, or at least I can’t find where I read it.

    “Anyone else notice how moptop came to the blog arguing that global temps. are warming, but just that it wasn’t influenced by humans? Now he’s switched to arguing that global temps aren’t warming at all.” – bilbo

    I never said that the warming wasn’t influenced by humans, and I never said it wasn’t “warming at all.” All I have said is that the warming is likely not unprecedented and that human influence is likely exaggerated. Why is everything black and white with you? If I said that CO2 did not cause warming, then I guess I would be a “denier.”

    I can wait for the re-analysis of the global temp data. I can wait until all adjustments have been scrutinized. There are issues with the Russian data as well, ever notice how it is always warming in Siberia? Well the Met Office released the raw data that was used to calculate Russia’s gridded temp history, and it would appear that that data as well was cherry picked. The raw data is being released, it will be scrutinized by outside sources. The truth will out.

    The funny thing is, right now the polls are really going against you warmies. Maybe what is needed is a thorough and public examination of the data to win over skeptics. Once the skeptics with a scientific background have been won over, the rest of your opposition will have no support. The problem is that, instead of explaining things so that people who might be able to understand them, could have access to them, data was hidden from legitimate requests for the flimsiest of reasons.

    You really should make a distinction between skeptics and “deniers”, and you should ignore the “deniers” and engage the skeptics. If you have the facts on your side, this will drain the punch bowl, and end the party. If AGW is true, and as bad as you say, then I would bury my Suburban, and put a small diesel engine in my boat. But your aren’t going to convince me by telling me that “people smarter than me” believe it. Because people smarter than you don’t.

  39. moptop

    bilbo,
    Really? Two or three independent data sets?

    “On the weblog Dot Earth today, there is text from Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, that presents analyses of long term surface temperature trends from NASA, NCDC and Japan as if these are from independent sets of data from the analysis of CRU. Andy Revkin is perpetuating this myth in this write-up by not presenting the real fact that these analyses draw from the same original raw data. While they may use only a subset of this raw data, the overlap has been estimated as about 90-95%.

    The unresolved problems with this surface data (which, of course, applies to all four locations) is reported in the peer reviewed paper

    Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: ”

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/page/5/

  40. moptop

    One more thing Gillt,

    This is from the first of your links:

    “Evidence suggests that the bias is systematic and on the same order of magnitude as the background climate signal, therefore adjustments….”

    It is almost as if he was saying that the adjusments are of the same order of magnitude as the warming! I couldn’t cut and paste, so I just typed it. Why would there be such “drivel” in the peer reviewed literature? My goodness.

    The rest of your links are about turd polishing. Finding more accurate ways to analyze data that is very likely fundamentally flawed.

  41. gillt

    It’s almost as if you wanted to quote mine the paper, which in fact you did if you came to that interpretation.

    Here’s the rest of the abstract (the only part of the paper you apparently read).

    “Evidence suggests that the collective effect of changes in observation practice at U.S. HCN stations is systematic and of the same order of magnitude as the background climate signal. For this reason, bias adjustments are essential to reducing the uncertainty in U.S. climate trends. The largest biases in the HCN are shown to be associated with changes to the time of observation and with the widespread changeover from liquid-in-glass thermometers to the maximum–minimum temperature system (MMTS). With respect to HCN version 1, HCN version 2 trends in maximum temperatures are similar, while minimum temperature trends are somewhat smaller because of 1) an apparent overcorrection in HCN version 1 for the MMTS instrument change and 2) the systematic effect of undocumented station changes, which were not addressed in HCN version 1.”

    The authors are saying that the changes in observation practices are on the same scale as the background signal, which is small, and concern only minimum temp trends.

    This is exactly what you want to see from a healthy and active field of research–the self-correcting work of scientists!

    Did a denier come up with this experiment and write this paper?

  42. bilbo

    Basic facts to counter moptop’s deflecting accusation that there is only one climate dataset used by the CRU, NOAA, and NASA:

    1.) As clearly stated on their website, NASA obtains climate data from four independent datasets and adds to that data observations from their own privately-used, independent monitoring stations.

    2.) NOAA uses a completely different approach, deploying their own ground, sea, upper air, and satellite sensors that aren’t used by any other agency to produce their climate record.

    3.) (The most simplest): If all three agencies used the exact same data, their present-day records wouldn’t show any scatter. It doesn’t take a climate scientists to figure that one out.

    In other words, what moptop attempts to do with a random blog post is easily refuted by basic information provided by the groups in question.

  43. Milton C.

    Bilbo is correct and moptop is wrong. There is more than one global temperature record out there, and all show the same trend (with some scatter, of course). The reason they show “90-95% overlap” is because, well, they’re all measuring the same thing: global temperature. That isn’t evidence of some global conspiracy; it’s evidence that all three datasets are doing their jobs correctly.

    The skeptic community commonly likes to attempt to tie different temperature records to one another through roundabout analyses like the one moptop linked to because they think that if they do, they can just attack one temperature record and be rid of all of them. It’s ultimately a lie on the order of “climate scientists don’t account for the impact of the sun!” It’s just a gross lie. Nothing more.

    (On an quasi-related note, moptop’s response to bilbo is a “blind them with science” skeptic response: full of lots of name- and credential-dropping but little substance. Read it closely, and nothing’s there.)

  44. PJ

    What the unholy hell are you even talking about, moptop? You’re trying to look for conspiracies now where even simple facts totally refute you.

    I guess next the skeptic community will be accusing scientists of using a giant weather machine housed at the Cult Headquarters of the Liberal Elite to manipulate global climate. Based off of the random accusations you’ve been making, that wouldn’t be far-fetched.

    You’re alternate reality must be a fun place to live in. Does it have aliens, too?

  45. gillt

    It’s okay, moptop has already admitted he makes stuff up on this very thread. It just takes him/her a while to admit it.

    #10 moptop: “Could you give me an example of a “centuries long climate record” that shows that today’s warming is “unprecedented”?”

    when I did…

    #18 moptop: “All of those temp records are adjusted by amounts greater than the amount of AGW they purport to show. See climategate.”

    when asked for just a wee bit of evidence…

    #38 moptop: “gillt, it pains me to write this, but in fact it appears that I was mistaken on the adjustments exceeding the warming trend, or at least I can’t find where I read it.”

    Bingo!

  46. bilbo

    More appropriately, moptop isn’t really making things up – he just seems to be gobbling up whatever he hears from another skeptic without asking or caring that it be corroborated with anything substantial. When you make a broad accusation about scientists fudging temperature records but then reveal later that you really don’t know what you were saying (see: “I can’t find where I read it”), you aren’t paying attention to the debate more than you are just regurgitating random talking points.

    That, my friends, is denialism at its unthinking best: searching the internet for anything that fits your preconceived conclusion. It’s miles from critical thinking. In fact, is the farthest thing you can get from it. Moptop’s little plight just exposes what the rest of us already knew.

  47. Milton C.

    gillt and bilbo have hit onto something by exposing moptop’s inability to support his accusations about climate science. And it doesn’t just rely on the instance gillt mentions in post #45. moptop has been asked here and on several other threads at the intersection to back his statements up time and time and time and time again, and he hasn’t succeeded once.

    This trend isn’t limited to moptop, but it applies to literally every skeptic here. Everyone is able to make these supposedly damning accusations stating that some random part of climate science, some random dataset, etc. is incorrect, but when pushed, they run away from the thread or try to deflect by quickly changing the topic. If you’re an objective observer, that should speak volumes.

    And I’m with bilbo on the statement that moptop isn’t making stuff up more than he is just accepting any claim made by another skeptic at face value. I get the feeling that’s what most skeptics do: they peruse skeptic blogs and forums and troll for talking points. When they find one, they quickly gobble it up with a “yes sir! I knew it!” and don’t bother to see if there’s even anything legit behind the claim. Moptop just admitted as much. If they didn’t do this blind acceptance of claims and accusations, they would likely know the reasons behind their claims rather than only being able to make the claim before tucking tail and running when challenged.

  48. PJ

    You’re right, gillt. Next will come moptop or some other skeptic with the typical denialist phrase of “well, you liberals just drink the climate kool-aid!” response. You see that one come out when a denialist has had his legs sliced out from under him, is in the corner bleeding profusely, and sees the ax come swinging one last time at his forehead.

    Resort to the political pejoratives when you’ve got nothing left!

  49. JIM

    You can claim victory however you want, PJ and gillt. we know you warmers just can’t bring it to yourselves to go against you god Algore, so you’ll make up whatever “evidence” you want to think you can prove us wrong.

    But you can’t prove why it’s a record cold snap in North America right now. No faked model mumbo jumbo can explain that.

  50. Man in the Yellow Hat

    “#18 moptop: “All of those temp records are adjusted by amounts greater than the amount of AGW they purport to show. See climategate.””

    “what total drivel” – I paraphrase gillt.

    “This is from the first of your links:

    ‘Evidence suggests that the bias is systematic and on the same order of magnitude as the background climate signal, therefore adjustments….’” – moptop

    I leave it to the reader to decide who has had their legs “cut out from under them.”

    And BTW JIM, I don’t need or want your help.

  51. Moptop

    Sorry, “Man in the Yellow Hat” was me.

  52. gillt

    I disagree. Moptop’s had ample opportunity to review the literature through links I’ve provided and through his own curiosity. His lame appeals to science are transparent attempts to look legitimate, because if he cared about the science he’d have something to show for it. Instead moptop consistently chose to quote-mine and intentionally misrepresent a single sentence in the abstract of one paper…even after he’s been called out for doing so.

    The denialist’s anti-science views run as deep as any young earth creationist or anti-vax activist. They ignores the mountain of evidence while focusing on a few stolen emails, opinion polls and cable news talking points.

  53. moptop

    I resent that, cable news knows almost nothing about climate issues. ;)

  54. gillt

    that makes two of you :)

  55. PJ

    …and I see JIM obviously didn’t read my post – which came DIRECTLY BEFORE HIS!!!!!!

    *snicker*

  56. PJ

    Did moptop just get exposed as posting under alters with a little slip-up in #50? I’m starting to wonder how many of the skeptics that seem to have “flooded” the blog are people like him, posting under duplicate names to make it look like there’s some big bloc out there…

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

About Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sheril Kirshenbaum is a research scientist with the Webber Energy Group at the University of Texas at Austin's Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy where she works on projects to enhance public understanding of energy issues as they relate to food, oceans, and culture. She is involved in conservation initiatives across levels of government, working to improve communication between scientists, policymakers, and the public. Sheril is the author of The Science of Kissing, which explores one of humanity's fondest pastimes. She also co-authored Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future with Chris Mooney, chosen by Library Journal as one of the Best Sci-Tech Books of 2009 and named by President Obama's science advisor John Holdren as his top recommended read. Sheril contributes to popular publications including Newsweek, The Washington Post, Discover Magazine, and The Nation, frequently covering topics that bridge science and society from climate change to genetically modified foods. Her writing is featured in the anthology The Best American Science Writing 2010. In 2006 Sheril served as a legislative Knauss science fellow on Capitol Hill with Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) where she was involved in energy, climate, and ocean policy. She also has experience working on pop radio and her work has been published in Science, Fisheries Bulletin, Oecologia, and Issues in Science and Technology. In 2007, she helped to found Science Debate; an initiative encouraging candidates to debate science research and innovation issues on the campaign trail. Previously, Sheril was a research associate at Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment and has served as a Fellow with the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation at the American Museum of Natural History and as a Howard Hughes Research Fellow. She has contributed reports to The Nature Conservancy and provided assistance on international protected area projects. Sheril serves as a science advisor to NPR's Science Friday and its nonprofit partner, Science Friday Initiative. She also serves on the program committee for the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). She speaks regularly around the country to audiences at universities, federal agencies, and museums and has been a guest on such programs as The Today Show and The Daily Rundown on MSNBC. Sheril is a graduate of Tufts University and holds two masters of science degrees in marine biology and marine policy from the University of Maine. She co-hosts The Intersection on Discover blogs with Chris Mooney and has contributed to DeSmogBlog, Talking Science, Wired Science and Seed. She was born in Suffern, New York and is also a musician. Sheril lives in Austin, Texas with her husband David Lowry. Interested in booking Sheril Kirshenbaum to speak at your next event? Contact Hachette Speakers Bureau 866.376.6591 info@hachettespeakersbureau.com For more information, visit her website or email Sheril at srkirshenbaum@yahoo.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT
Collapse bottom bar
+

Login to your Account

X
E-mail address:
Password:
Remember me
Forgot your password?
No problem. Click here to have it e-mailed to you.

Not Registered Yet?

Register now for FREE. Registration only takes a few minutes to complete. Register now »