Challenging the Abuse of Atmospheric Radiocarbon Data in pursuit of a Healthy Information Ecosystem

The consensus understanding of the carbon cycle, including human responsibility for the increase in atmospheric carbon over the past 75 years, has on occasion been challenged by non-climate scientists using misunderstood radiocarbon data. The challenges have appeared in lightly reviewed predatory journals, occasionally in reputable but inappropriate journals, and on climate skeptics’ internet blogs. While having no effect on mainstream climate science, wrong but unrebutted arguments presented in a scientific guise have the potential to confuse makers of public policy. This presentation will detail the author’s several experiences identifying and correcting errors and misunderstandings in the published record. When the variable commonly used to present ¹⁴C data is correctly interpreted, and when simple mixing between carbon in the atmosphere and carbon in other reservoirs is considered, radiocarbon data nicely verifies the consensus view. While the physical science that will be presented can be somewhat subtle, it is straightforward and hardly new. The social science, on the other hand, raises a number of thorny issues. These include tension between the integrity of the scientific record and censorship, the role of predatory journals, and the unfortunate existence of information silos which create division and compromise policy making. Our democracy needs but lacks, in the words of Harvard political philosopher Danielle Allen, a “healthy information ecosystem”.