The Braying Wolves
In the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately dept, I see that Fred Pearce is getting worked over by hysterics in the climate sphere. For the record, I’ve already stated several times (at my site) and over at Judith Curry’s blog that Pearce committed a boo-boo no-no in a recent blog post.
Deltoid blows this up into “Pearcegate.” Stoat sinks his fangs into Pearce, citing his “current lies” and “cluelessness.” Of course, the proverbial shark-jumping is invoked over at Romm’s. The pile-on is dutifully catalogued by Stoat. The only one who resists the blood orgy is Bart Verheggen, whose blog is one of the last bastions for non-hyperbolic climate change commentary.
All in all, quite a site to behold.
“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.” (NewScientist)
NewScientist needs to take a survey of who the “leaders” are of “mainstream climate science”. Last I looked, no one had yet taken a vote of the membership in any case and the only recognition (a free chicken dinner or two) has only come from outsiders, straphangers, and wannabes who would have their psyence, politics, investments, causes, and whatnot, take presidence over anyone else’s. Sounds more like internal dirty party politics in the far back smokefilled rooms of the rich and infamous with the “wannabe-leaders” of “mainstream climate propaganda”. Hummmmmm… NASA appears to have nothing to do these days and the natives are restless. I think perhaps we might save a lot of Chinese taxpayer money by employing the BRAC-method here. Say a 50% reduction in personnel and office space and cut the number of Space Centers by 35%? Let’s let the Europeans, Japanese, and Indians take the lead for a while America. The Chinese are going to take over soon anyway.
Given that the debate has been consistently characterised in terms of the scientists failure to communicate “properly” (with “properly” being defined in probably 20 inconsistent ways but that’s a different matter) I don’t think it’s all that surprising that a journalist wrongly attributing statements to a scientist is going to cause a big scuffle especially when the clarification itself is used as yet another club to beat down said scientists (“Ah look! He’s saying the science isn’t settled!”).
Removing the hysterics from the debate would be nice but I’d probably start with the people who are hysterical 24/7 rather than the people who are occasionally frustrated to the point of.
Maybe you have a different notion of ‘boo boo’ than I do, so for clarity, I think a boo boo is something:
* You expect to happen, even if you wish it didn’t
* Causes no particular harm to anybody
* Could be addressed by ‘oops, sorry, I meant to say 3, not 4’, but probably wouldn’t even be mentioned afterwards.
NS and Pearce have chosen to not address the error, which also accords with ‘boo boo’. And I’m not interested here in the degree of harm caused.
What’s interesting to me for the moment is that this is something we (scientists prospectively speaking to journalists, or at least being written about by them) can expect. One of the first things scientists I talk to about journalists complain about is being misquoted. It is perhaps the single biggest barrier to getting scientists to talk to journalists. Now, some of this is on the scientists — not using language that the journalist can use, not being clear about what his point is, and so on.
So here we have Pearce presenting something which he had to know (per your comment in your earlier thread) was inflammatory, and is incorrect, as being a scientist’s view on science. In making this presentation, he didn’t even speak to the scientist he was representing in an inflammatory way as to whether it was accurate.
This, you say, is a ‘boo boo’. I’ll take your word that this is the journalistic standard. Something trivial that you wish didn’t happen, but any adult realizes is going to and is not worth any correction when it does. (Nice if the person involved did say ‘oops’, but kind of gravy if they did.)
As a scientist, I can’t say that this being the standard of journalists encourages me to speak to them. I’m willing to put some effort in to trying to be understandable, keep my initial answers to questions down to a couple minutes rather than half an hour, and so forth. And my few actual encounters with journalists have suggested that I did ok at it. Definitely they did ok in my opinion.
But for it to be a trivial thing, by journalist standards, to present something inflammatory as being my opinion without even talking to me about what my opinion is and in spite of public record of me saying the contrary? I guess I have to count myself lucky in my previous experiences.
So I can understand what journalist standards are, what are some examples of what Pearce would have had to do before you would _not_ characterize a few blogs complaining about the error as ‘a braying pack of wolves’? Or at least, what caliber of error would he have to make before you would think it was worse than a ‘boo boo’?
My original impressions of what journalistic standards were was based on idealistic undergraduates in the Medill School of Journalism. That was quite a while back, and perhaps that group wasn’t really representative of the profession even then. They’d always struck me as being more concerned about accuracy than to describe this event as a ‘boo boo’. Time for some updating of my impressions.
This is why I stopped reading this blog. Curse you mt.
The climate community should just keep their traps shut when yet another smear-and-fear campaign commences? F* that.
Personally I think Fred Pearces remark, was just a flippant throwaway remark and a cheap joke, that I’m SURE he is regretting now.. Also a big mistake, as how was it ever going to help.
(Realclimate is part of Guardian ‘Environment Network of websites – the Guardain is Fred’s hometurf – 127 articles and counting)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/fredpearce
End game to the CAGW delusion?
They start to turn on their own and devour each other..
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
Mann
Jones
Schmidt
Trenberth
Do you get it now?
Remember Climate Gate! Circle the Wagons!
Gavin Schmidt can parse his words and insist on his “˜interpretation’ as much as he wishes but his meaning is absolutely clear ““ despite his “˜uncertainty’ post made after “˜climategate’ had outed him: that global warming is happening, that this is caused, in the main, by human made GHGs, that, if mankind does not halt these GHGs, catastrophe will follow and that this is “˜settled science’ and the “˜consensus’.
The latter is brought in, however, not because Gavin et al needs us to confirm this science (for why should they? Do we have advocate blogs like Real Climate, defending physics, for instance?) but rather, because they needs us to agree with their misanthropic policy wish list ““ by convincing us, somehow, that because there is only one “˜scientific consensus’, it, therefore, follows that (and here the real “˜fraud’ – a sophistical and political one – happens) there is only ‘one’ answer ““ theirs ““ which, however they parse, means an attack on the present development and therefore well being of the developed and the underdeveloped of this world.
By embracing a putative “˜crises’ they not only give themselves meaning, fill a void, but, also, they hope, lever the world towards what they want. But mankind can reject these simplicities.
Worse, because Gavin et al, are so convinced they know how the world should be ( they deny this, of course, but when ever was being able to know themselves one of their virtues?) they design the science, at least in terms of the “˜message’, to be conducive to those ends. It, therefore, becomes, and has become, a purely political endeavour and, hence, about as scientific as “˜historical materialism’.
Some people would do well to acquire an intellectual conscience.
I see, you think that only journalists should criticize journalists. Anyone else who does is a donkey according to you.
I’m ‘bored’ with what journalists and people who didn’t go to this thing are saying/not saying, etc.
Let’s hear more from the participants themselves…
The wheels are coming off the global-warming bandwagon.
The days before Climategate were their high-water mark: all fired up for a planet-saving-green-job-bonanza-help-3rd-world-and-free-apple-pie Copenhagen treaty. It all seemed too good to be true: because it was too good to be true.
The shocking revelations in the emails and the sloppy computer code – plus superb gamesmanship from the Chinese – turned the jamboree into a flaccid anti-climax.
Since then they’ve been on the back foot with some high profile defections like Judy Curry.
And a big non-event in Cancun. It’s all downhill now.
I’m lovin this latest spat – the more that the public see this infantile behaviour, the better. Bring it on.
Tim, nobody should criticize journalists. That would be ‘tribalism,’ which is bad.
Robert (3):
As I said in my post, I’ve been absolutely clear that Pearce messed up by not checking directly with Gavin.
However, I feel the response on nearly all the AGW blogs is way out of proportion to the crime. Pearce is one of the best climate reporters out there–he has a body of sterling work that he should be judged on. But as usual, one screw-up is magnified into “Pearcegate” and an excuse to tarnish him as “rubbish.” It’s outrageous.
Of course, judging by some of the comments in this thread, even me making a case for some proportionality is somehow interpreted as me being unwilling to criticize fellow journalists–when that’s obviously not the case here. Sorry fellahs, you can have the blood orgy all to yourself.
The double standard on display here is shocking. Not because of its existence, which wasn’t exactly a secret, but because of its brazen openness.
Classy.
As I wrote in the comments of Pearce’s New Scientist article (and this part is directed at him rather than Kloor), it must be nice to a job where one can just make sh*t up about people and not even feign accountability or a duty to accuracy. I guess that’s sort of what being George Will must be like. Pearce is really going places.
Keith, I actually read, amusingly enough, Fred’s original piece as being somewhat ironic and, in parts, let us say, snide, about this Portugal conflab – the part about Schmidt being part of that knock about. Ie part of it’s rhetoric, as if he’d found himself amongst a group which, he soon realised, where somewhat embarrassing for him. Hence, the irony of this very good journalist but mainstream and, I believe, personally convinced, as regards the ‘consensus’, being abused by the ‘believers’, in this fashion. Another case of touchy advocacy shooting itself in the foot?
Steve McIntyre confirms that Pearce read Gavin’s email declining the invitation
http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/04/lisbon-workshop-on-reconciliation-part-iv/#comment-38454
thingsbreak,
Do you even know who Fred Pearce is? He did not make things up, he relayed an interpretation of Gavins position. Gavins email has confirmed that that interpretation is valid. It may not be your interpretation but it is mine and many others. It may not even be Gavins interpretation. But it is an interpretation that the email can deliver. Have you read the article? Seen it in it’s context, it’s throw away nature in it’s attempt to give a flavour of the scene? Please do and please stop making reprehensible accusations without foundation.
Judith, if that’s true (Pearce has to confirm this for me, all due respect to SteveMc), then it confirms my initial speculation, which is reflected in Lewis Deane’s recent comment above (14):
“…Fred’s original piece as being somewhat ironic and, in parts, let us say, snide, about this Portugal conflab ““ the part about Schmidt being part of that knock about.”
Which is why I initially read right past that part, because I was interpreting Fred’s post as mostly a knock on the Lisbon get-together.
At this point, it would be good for Fred to issue some sort of clarification/correction, just to keep people’s heads from exploding. 🙂
I just read the Steve Mc comment at Judith’s. He writes:
Keith Kloor said: “But like I said earlier, Fred ought to have gotten this straight from the horse’s mouth. Like Ronald Reagan said, Trust, but verify.”
Keith’s criticism here is unfounded. I can confirm that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email to the organizers declining the invitation to the conference, because I (by chance) happened to be sitting with Pearce when he was provided with a copy of Gavin’s email and observed him reading it carefully.
On the contrary, my main point still stands, in that Fred should have checked with Gavin that he was interpreting the email correctly. But again, I suspect that Fred was being snide and cheeky here, too, except that it didn’t come off that way.
Keith, as Dr. Curry points out, Pearce saw what Gavin wrote and could easily have quoted it rather than making such an inflammatory paraphrase. He didn’t “mess up.” He intentionally misquoted Gavin. He has had ample opportunity to correct his “boo boo,” and the fact that he hasn’t indicates that he did not in fact think it was a “boo boo.”
And true to form, the only problem you have with all this is not that a journalist smeared someone, but that people are saying mean things about a journalist on blogs.
Robert Grumbine makes some good points upthread.
Without knowing the meaning of “boo boo” I think Keith did the right thing: He criticized Fred Pearce for unquestionally taking over an inflammatory quote without checkoing with the person it concerned. He’s also right that this doesn’t need to translate directly into “trash journalist” or something like that.
But Keith, you do seem to judge some AGW bloggers harsher. E.g. Tim Lambert’s title “Pearcegate: is an abvious refarral to climategate, where a small issue was blogn up way out of proportion. The substance of e.g. William Connolley’s critique rings quite true to me, even though he uses harsher language than I do.
Tone is important in public discourse, but ultimataly the substance is what matters most (or at least it should).
I don’t understand how the possibility that Pearce was merely being “snide” is supposed to matter here. He wasn’t writing at his personal blog, he was writing for New Scientist magazine. He’s a seasoned journalist. He used the phrase “X said”.
I don’t understand how this isn’t garnering a reaction of outrage from his fellow journalists, in terms of professionalism if nothing else. In most lines of work being “snide” or “cheeky” when attributing something to a source isn’t a justifiable excuse. If anything that’s worse than a simple case of passing off someone else’s characterization without verifying it. That means the spin came directly from Pearce, and was still characterized as something Schmidt allegedly “said”.
So, what does the Pearce quote mean? Was it a subtle dig at present company (14, 18), or a more opaque dig at Gavin? Or was it an honest interpretation, teased out and arrived at independently by both Tallbloke and Pearce, or was Pearce simply lazily relaying Tallblokes interpretation? Or something else?
Only Fred knows! 🙂
thingsbreak, then you haven’t read the piece or you don’t understand this kind of journalism. I must admit that the piece is somewhat conflicted – Fred is trying to reconcile and somewhat clumsily a number of conflicting feelings. One of which is try not to be impolite to your host. So, ok, he’s human but he is not being insincere. Perhaps, his silence betokens his embarrasment. The real point is, this clumsiness proves and proved nothing. It means even less. So, calm down and take things in proportion, please!
I am a bit surprised that Schmidt’s actual email, which with his permission was posted at Tallbloke’s site has not been posted here. However, here it is:
“I’m a little confused at what conflict you feel you are going to be addressing? The fundamental conflict is of what (if anything) we should do about greenhouse gas emissions (and other assorted pollutants), not what the weather was like 1000 years ago. Your proposed restriction against policy discussion removes the whole point. None of the seemingly important “˜conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are “˜conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No “˜conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
You would be much better off trying to find common ground on policy ideas via co-benefits (on air pollution, energy security, public health water resources etc), than trying to get involved in irrelevant scientific “˜controversies’.”
—-
A couple of points. First, Pearce’s characterization of Schmidt’s position was certainly fair and the warmists are really having hysterics about nothing.
Second, Schmidt and the rest of the team are terrified of the skeptics simply because they realize at a scientific level a) that there is mounting evidence for a Medieval Warm period warmer than current temps, b) that the temps (with the goosed exception of GISS) have flattened and that there is no model-consistent explanation for this, c) that more and more “warming” is being explained by natural variability and non-CO2 anthropomorphic effects, d) the hockey stick has been exposed as bad science if not worse, e) that no one can find Trenberth’s missing heat.
At a political and policy level things are looking even worse for the Team. As the CO2-temp connection grows more tenuous the idea of reducing CO2 emissions at enormous cost grows more dubious. The Climategate disclosures took the shine off the impartiality of the “climate scientists”. The “inquiries” raised more questions than they answered and the whitewash was peeling before it was even dry. It turns out that the Team are terrible communicators – the most egregious example being Trenberth’s recent attempt to rewrite the scientific method in his speech where he attempts to reverse the null hypothesis and leave actual science in the dust.
But what is ultimately bringing the Team down is its remarkably tin ear. Shooting at Fred Pearce simply alienates the many people who have seen Pearce as a relatively fair minded journalist. The over the top response by the warmist zealots confirms the fact they are getting desperate now that they do not have total control of the conversation. It suggests weakness and the more shrill they become the more it sounds as if they have rather a lot to hide.
#19:
Keith,
Should not Fred also have checked if Gavin wanted his refusal and the reasons for it aired publicly? After all, it was sent in a private email to organizers.
And I think Fred should have reported that one of the conference organizers was openly discussing and passing around an absent invitee’s private email – in connection with a conference designed to foster trust and reconciliation, yet. That’s a big part of the real story.
I wonder how Jerrome Ravetz is going to react to all this. Maybe a real journalist will get around to asking him.
@Deep Climate:
And I think Fred should have reported that one of the conference organizers was openly discussing and passing around an absent invitee’s private email ““ in connection with a conference designed to foster trust and reconciliation, yet. That’s a big part of the real story.
Unfortunately, DC, that runs counter to the narrative of the plucky, earnest, (albeit often quirky) underdog skeptics vs. the arrogant, close-minded climate scientists.
@deepclimate
And I think Fred should have reported that one of the conference organizers was openly discussing and passing around an absent invitee’s private email ““ in connection with a conference designed to foster trust and reconciliation, yet. That’s a big part of the real story.
Real jounalists report the news. It is news that Schmidt refused to come. His reasons are also news. Putting those reasons out for scrutiny is precisely what journalists are supposed to do.
I think, deepclimate, you people are going to have to get over the closed shop, old boy network, assumptions you have been operating under to date if you are to have a hope of restoring the public credibility of “climate science”.
Pearce’s job is not to hide Schmidt’s decline, it is to expose it and the muddled thinking which underlies it.
Keith says: “But as usual, one screw-up is magnified into “Pearcegate” and an excuse to tarnish him as “rubbish.””
Thingsbreak’s post title is <a href=”http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/fred-pearce-is-still-a-rubbish-journalist/”>Fred Pearce is *still* a rubbish journalist</a>. It’s not one screw-up, but merely the latest one. I know you hate it when bad journalism is criticised, but your lot really needs to do better.
As Bart has already explained, by “Pearcegate” I am not magnifying anything but suggesting that it’s something minor, like “Climategate”. For something that is serious, like he Wegman scandal, I use the word scandal rather than -gate.
Keith,
not sure you’ve seen this. Steve McIntyre on Lucia’s site [1]:
<i>Your surmise here is incorrect. I can confirm with absolute certainty that Fred Pearce read Gavin’s email because I was sitting with both Pearce and tallbloke at dinner (we set out as part of a larger group and got separated) when tallbloke showed Pearce the email in question, which Pearce read carefully.</i>
Tallbloke, by his own account, wanted to take the heat off Pearce with the claim that Tallbloke was responsible for the rephrasing.
[1] http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/what-gavin-said-gate/
To all of the participants in this ‘controversy”
Get a life?
Who cares?
How does any of this matter?
Why do you think that the public think that the AGW issue is just overblown posturing by a bunch of politicians and Internet addicts?
Maybe because of brouhahas like this.
The blackboard has an interesting comment by ‘Atomic Hairdryer’ (Comment#68149)
February 5th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Is it possible that the particular house rules of this debate exerted an influence here? I think this may be an adequate answer, although others mileage may vary.
@ 31 Tom Gray.
“Get a life? Who cares?”
You’re right. I’m off to bed
Actually, McIntyre’s account isn’t quite right. Pearce read it aloud to McIntyre and McKitrick, according to Tallbloke. Notice how McIntyre doesn’t say it was read aloud, leaving the impression that he wasn’t aware of the contents of the email, without actually saying so.
So that clears up a lot. The whole point was to get Gavin Schmidt’s private email into the hands of a journalist who could be reliably spun. And this was done by someone who wasn’t even supposed to have had access to that email.
Do you really think this is just a minor boo boo for Pearce?
There’s only one way for Pearce to make amends. And that’s to report the real story of how he and the organizers got conned by a fringe blogger with an agenda. I wonder whose idea it was to invite Pearce?
re my 31
and 34
QED
I think a factor in this mini-tempest in a micro teacup is that Mr Pearce was rather highly regarded by the Consensusites in prior years, until Climategate raised his hackles.
They think they have been betrayed and they are angry. Much as they were angry at Andrew Revkin when he strayed from the party line. Much as they periodically get angry at KK when he picks on one of their icons.
Funny how the longer people hang around the climate world the more likely they are to move away from the party line. Anybody have examples of people who have moved closer?
Pearce read it aloud to McIntyre and McKitrick, according to Tallbloke.
DC, is it really surprising that these same people would treat personal emails with any type of with measured consideration to personal property or careful interpretation of the message? Cyberspace is their treasure trove. Why give up that gambit?
Pearces piece reads like almost the whole body of mainstream climate science thumbed its noses at an effort to reconcile differences and he has done so on pretty weak grounds.
New Scientist is reasonably widely read by scientists in the UK as a kind of way of seeing what is happening in other fields (some biologists do like a bit of astronomy).
I really think that in the context of the never ending attacks on climate science in the media its worth fighting for every minor victory (think the recent attacks on Ken Trenberth). Fighting to make sure that the narrative is not that climate science arrogently thumbed its nose at an honest and generous offer is worth the candle.
It’s amazing how many people are able to confuse an unquoted paraphrase with a “direct quote”. Impressive stuff.
But what’s really funny.. frikken hilarious, actually.. is how openly so many warmists are suddenly insisting that the science is NOT settled and that a consensus of 97% of climate scientists does not mean that the science is in. Sceptics have been trying to coax acknowledgement of the level of uncertainty and recognition of the infancy of climate science and the long road ahead for years while – with one throw away line – Pearce is able to do it in the space of one sentence.
Bloody ace.. keep it up 🙂
Between that admission, Simon, and the overall hysteria in the warmist camp I have to say it’s a good day for skeptics.
But poor old Fred is going to be struck off more than a few Christmas lists.
Note that tallbloke’s original story was
“when I was asked one evening in Lisbon why certain people weren’t there I gave a quick praisee, including a brief reference to Gavin’s response. This made it’s way to Fred, hence the reference in his blog piece reporting on the conference.”
And then he would’t share the email with Gavin’s permission.
Now he says that in fact he gave the email to Pearce, who read it aloud to McIntyre and McKitrick.
Who knows what his story will be tomorrow.
“And then he would’t share the email with Gavin’s permission.”
That’s “without”, right?
I find it interesting to see you try to seek out something in this to object to, and I find it odd that you’d latch on to a presumption of secrecy over an email in the current climate of increasing openness, and that in all likelihood would be subject to a FOI request if one were made.
Why is it, do you think, that Gavin needs to be defensive or secretive about the content of his message? Do you not think that the spirit of increasing honesty and openness flies a little in the face of your coughing up a fur ball over concealment of the reason Gavin gave for not attending? What is it you’re complaining about, exactly?
Simon, I’m pointing out that tallbloke’s story was decitful, rather “setting the record straight”. He didn’t give a precis which “made it’s way to Fred”. He gave the email (which he knew he wasn’t supposed to have) to Pearce. If tallbloke felt that there was nothing wrong with this, why did he hide what actually happened?
A private communication only has to be written to be understood by the recipient. A public communication often has to be written differently so that it will not be understood.
This is too funny except for the almost pathological hatred for McIntyre. McIntyre said Pearce read it carefully. How did he know? Pearce read it out loud. Get a life!
“A public communication often has to be written differently so that it will not be understood.”
Well, Tim, there’s not much I can say about this except that I do appreciate that you and your fellowship do seem to believe that this is demanded.
Tim, do please explain why/in what way Tallbloke – one of the event’s informal organizing team – wasn’t “supposed to have”, to see, to read or to be aware of the content of Gavin’s email. Or why Pearce should not have been made aware of Gavin’s reasons for not attending, particularly by Gavin’s own writing.
If Gavin had been busy that weekend, and had told Tallbloke so, based on your objections one would reasonably assume that you, Tim, would have expected Tallbloke to conceal that fact. Could you give a hypothetical example of a lie that Tallbloke could have told in place of the truth, saying that Gavin was busy that weekend?
It seems patently obvious, going by your obsession over the exposure that Gavin’s response has received, that you find Gavin’s explanation acutely embarrassing. I am bound to wonder why this is so, or, if it is not so, why it seems so much like it is. What on earth fuels your fervour over this, Tim?
PS: Yes, I know you made a slip. I couldn’t help myself 🙂
PPS: Tim was clearly (and has since, I think, stated) that he was trying to spare Fred some heat, taking the blame for the paraphrasing. Though this was a very chivalrous attempt at lightening the load for Fred, I am bound to agree that Tallbloke should have been straight about what happened from the start, rather than waiting to be prompted by Steve McIntyre’s voluntary clarification. The truth will out – as indeed it has, in every respect, from Gavin to Tallbloke to Fred – and at the end of the day, that works for me.
My bad. My PPS should have started Tallbloke, not Tim.
Tim Lambert saying somebody shouldn’t have published a private email?
Hahhahaahahahahahahhaahahhhaahhahhaa
I can now watch the Super Bowl with my mind at ease….
My 2 C
Pheww. What a weird day or two.
Firstly – I reckon the award for creative paranoia here should go to DC for his excellent @34 post, which posits that the ‘whole point’ of this this thing was to fool Pearce via some kind of setup by sceptics in order to discredit Gavin. Pretty cool I must say. Those wily sceptics. So devious! Go DC! Wooo!
Secondly, I should probably apologise to Gavin for reading his replies the wrong way. I’ve backed down on ascribing things to Gavin that he may not have meant before, and I can do it again. I still do think that what Gavin sometimes writes, and what he intends his words to mean, can sometimes come across as being kind of incompatible or opposite- but I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t actually agree with him that the only interesting science being done or the only interesting points of contention is the science or points of contention which are interesting to Gavin, but I can understand how he might feel this way 😉
Another thing which has come up is how this conference has been referred to in the AGW blogs as simply a ‘fossil fuel funded confab’, a ‘wimpy denialist workshop’, etc ad nauseum. Well, yeah… when one whole side basically refuses to show up I can see how it could look that way. And then related to this is some interesting talk over at Eli’s on the topic of ‘what is PNS?’ – with the impression apparently arrived at that this is some kind of political nonscience that sceptics do. Maybe Eli and his readers aren’t aware that the topic of ‘what is PNS’ was covered extensively last year at WUWT over a number of very engaged posts, with the dominant conclusion (elegantly and forcefully expressed most notably by Willis Eschenbach) being that PNS was basically a load of old bollocks…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/12/dr-ravetz-posts-normally/
It would be unfortunate and innacurate for people to start attributing the sceptical position with a broard acceptance of PNS theory, due to this conference. As Willis points out in the above link, a quick check of the blog links at the Post Normal Times website shows just who the post normalists feel most chummy with (hint: not one sceptic website listed). Heh, even Eli’s blog is on there…
And finally, I guess we’re still waiting on Fred to weigh in.
Wow, I go to bed early and wake up to find the side show has spawned even stranger side side shows. At this point, I don’t know what to make of anything. Best thing would be for Pearce to respond.
Actually, if you look at Tallbloke’s post from early January you can see that he has already read Schmidt’s emailed response and already decided what it means. That Pearce should have read it and taken it the same way does show a man fairly easily spun.
I imagine this is what is known as “Building a mountain out of a mole hill.” The human mind is a very complex thing. It can go anywhere, do anything, and not even move.
Fred is packing for this one… look who is attending..
http://folk.uio.no/chbjor/invitation_final.pdf
Keith (13)
Your request for proportionality is amusing given your characterization of events from those you disagree with as a ‘blood orgy’. Since you characterize Perce’s error as ‘boo boo’, it’d be more proportionate of you to refer to them as having a ‘hissy’.
You also seem to have a unique notion of ‘almost all AGW’ blogs. 5-6 is almost all? I, like most climate bloggers, didn’t mention it at all. Nor will I, as it isn’t about the science.
It’s about the journalism, so your blog seems a reasonable place to talk about it. You tell me (everybody) that a) it’s an error but also that b) it’s trivial (a ‘boo boo’). Your lengthier comments and strong language (‘blood orgy’ !?) are reserved for condemning the people who object to the error — not the error. No suggestion either that you think there should be a correction of the error.
Last September you and I took up the question of where in journalism a scientist could reasonably expect the science to be presented correctly. Not op-ed sections, obviously, nor, as was at hand then, ‘lifestyle’ sort of people articles (the Dyson interview). You said then that you’d get back to the question of where it might be reasonable for a scientist to expect a journalist to get the science correct. I’m still looking forward to you addressing that.
At hand, you still haven’t addressed my question of what sort of error a journalist would have to make before, by journalistic standards, it would be reasonable for a handful of bloggers to complain about it. Nor what caliber of error it would have to be before it would be reasonable, by journalistic standards, to expect a correction to be made.
The rest of us are not journalists. It would help communication if you would describe what the standards are in your profession. Us trying to guess, based on what you call a boo boo, and who you condemn is not a very efficient method. As I mentioned last fall, different fields clearly have different standards, a source of much interesting discussion between my wife (a lawyer) and me. Further, they need to. The reasons why are another interesting area for discussion.
Robert (54):
It seems you are focusing on one word (boo, boo), rather than all my prior statements (which I have referenced) on the paraphrased sentence in question.
Since you seem unable to acknowledge that I have said previously that Pearce screwed up, let me amend the wording in my post from “boo, boo” to “no, no.”
Does that clear up the confusion on your part?
If not, let me go further. Here’s the sentence in the Pearce post causing all the ruckus (my emphasis):
But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.
To better cover his ass, Pearce should have written (my emphasis): who said in an email to the organizers…
Of course, this is still wrong, based on my reading of Gavin’s response in that email, but at least we would know who and where Gavin’s paraphrased statement came from.
And as I also said previously, Fred should have checked his interpretation of Gavin’s email response directly with Gavin. In which case I’d have gone so far as to quote Gavin directly.
I don’t know how I could be any clearer on this aspect of the controversy.
As for my post on the reaction to this kerfuffle, well, I object to the nastiness and dismissal of Pearce as an otherwise excellent science journalist–because of one error.
As someone else remarked (not sure who, since I’m writing this on the fly), the largely one-dimensional, monolithic criticism is similar to when folks object to something Andy Revkin writes in his blog. When that happens, suddenly he’s characterized as a terrible journalist or a sell-out or both. Of course, usually leading the charge in this hyperbolic, out-sized reaction is you-know-who (though he seems to be tempering a bit of late, I’ve noticed.)
Does this answer your concerns related to this matter?
Tallbloke’s words were a good enough proxy for Gavin’s views.
What do you people want – a computer simulation of Gavin’s views as well as a proxy ?
No, they weren’t–not even for a throwaway line in a blog post.
If the shoe were on the other foot (generalized interpretation of a private email of say, Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts), skeptics wouldn’t be so forgiving of the journalist.
So the BS cuts both ways on this: wide latitude is given to the journalist by skeptics because something he wrote bolsters their talking point. And the other side (the hysterical ones, anyway) is breathing fire because of a single transgression, and failing to place in the context of a long, distinguished career as a science journalist. Typical blind spots exhibited by the polar wings of the climatesphere.
Keith,
whether Gavin wrote or said the comment attributed by Pearce is not what is getting people up in arms. The paraphrase was wrong and in contrast to Gavin’s known stance. It’s seen as yet another cut in a thousand cuts attack aimed at Gavin’s integrity. That’s why you get the harsh reactions.
And no, Jack Hughes, it is decidedly not a “good enough proxy” for Gavin’s views; unless you don’t really care for what his reason for not attending was in the first place.
bluegrue (58): “It’s seen as yet another cut in a thousand cuts attack aimed at Gavin’s integrity. That’s why you get the harsh reactions.”
I can accept that rationale, if that’s how it was being expressed. Instead, all that anger is essentially boiled down to is Pearce = Rubbish.
On a related note, see the latest example of how this whole thing just becomes point-scoring fodder for the never-ending partisan wars. Phraseology as its finest, too, in that post: “DicKs.” (Never mind that Romm is late to the latest twist in this story–that Pearce apparently read Gavin’s email.)
“”DicKs.”
Just once, I would love to see Romm take the high road for a change.
“wide latitude is given to the journalist by skeptics because something he wrote bolsters their talking point.”
Nahh, Keith.. very little attention is given to it by sceptics compared with the implications of what Gavin actually said, which is different from sceptics being selectively forgiving, and contrasts with the determination from alarmists to focus on the Pearce transgression which diverts attention away from Gavin’s inconvenient email.
I’ve said, now, several times – and I haven’t noticed any sceptics vehemently disagreeing – that Fred’s paraphrase was more useful than it was appropriate. I don’t think it was appropriate, and in this respect I agree with you wholeheartedly: Fred goofed. But, conversely, Fred’s goof has facilitated a valuable discussion on something that is frequently meticulously implied, yet apparently rarely stated (h/t Judith) in this precise form; that “the science is settled”.
So the difference seems one of emphasis, Keith, and weight of importance given, rather than forgiveness or the turning of blind eyes. You’re present for the discussion but apparently not listening to it.
“Just once, I would love to see Romm take the high road for a change.”
I’d prefer to keep Romm just the way he is. He’s perpetually off-base and is a useful link for sceptics who are explaining from where in the debate so much of the utterly unhinged vitriol from the alarmists is sourced.
you seem unable to acknowledge that I have said previously that Pearce screwed up
That’s funny, because Bob’s comment (right above yours) contains the sentence “You tell me (everybody) that a) it’s an error but also that b) it’s trivial (a “˜boo boo’).” It seems you are focusing on one word (boo boo), rather than everything else Bob Grumbine wrote about why this issue is relevant. How journalists cover science, nominally at least, is a central topic of this blog. Why shouldn’t we be talking about it?
Using baby-talk to characterize what Pearce did (the difference is between a “boo-boo” and a “no-no” is unclear to me) suggests that you don’t think it’s a big deal. Certainly you don’t seem to think it violates any journalistic standards, so I’d join Bob in asking just what those standards are, or if it’s purely a subjective thing. If Joe Romm did the same thing to Judy Curry, would you write a sharp, condemnatory post, or airily dismiss it as a “boo-boo,” a “no-no,” or an “oopsie-daisy?”
That you lightly rap Pearce on the knuckles while praising his “long, distinguished career” doesn’t evince much confidence in your idea of journalistic standards. This “otherwise excellent science journalist” has employed the distorted paraphrase before, in addition to just getting the science wrong. But you reserve your outrage for exactly three critical blog posts (you link the same post by Tim Lambert post twice), which you call a “blood orgy” by “braying wolves” (or wolf-donkey hybrids, I guess, as wolves generally stick to “baying”)
It’s inconsistent, incoherent, and a shining example of exactly what’s wrong with science journalism, but you think talking about this is a side show to a side show. Why write a blog day after day taking others to account for what they write and how they spin if you’re not able to take any criticism yourself?
@Tim Lambert #9
“I see, you think that only journalists should criticize journalists. Anyone else who does is a donkey according to you.”
An odd comment from one of the leading luminaries of climate dogmasphere. Over at Deltoid the prevailing orthodoxy is that only scientists should criticise scientists. Anyone one else who does so is a donkey.
#57 Keith
Don’t forget the back channel communications revealed in the Climategate emails.
Neat thing about this story is the double biinds created. By not attending, climate scientists can denigrate the event as being unrepresentative and a sceptical gathering. MapleLeaf tries this over at NS by saying “And of those only three are recognized/reputable climate scientists active in the field”. Other, presumably officially recognised/reputable scientists were invited but declined to attend for a variety of reasons. Those reasons should be of interest to a journalist covering an event about building bridges between sceptics and ‘alarmists’. Gavin, perhaps mistakenly tried to be helpful and didn’t simply say he was too busy. If he had, we wouldn’t be having this debate, just wondering why so few ‘alarmists’ showed up.
But the best thing is the way this ‘tempest in a teacup’ has been blown up way out of all proportion into some kind of journalistic scandal and the supposed behaviour of Fred Pearce. Many of the usual suspects piled on the attack. Of a journalist who had been generally supportive of the AGW position. At a time when AGW PR people are complaining about lack of media interest. So straight into the attack on a supportive journalist. Nice own goal, and the ‘alarmists’ wonder why they’re losing the hearts and minds campaign.
At least we now know unequivocally that the science isn’t settled, so now just need to find out which bits are least settled and need more research before wasting money on policy actions related to those areas. I also look forward to seeing more corrections from the ‘alarmists’ any time the phrase ‘the science is settled’ or similar is used or abused.
The paraphrase was wrong and in contrast to Gavin’s known stance
I demur.
First those who say the paraphrase is wrong don’t seem to want to explain what argument the slogan “The Science is Settled” has come to convey in climate science.
I think Pearce’s paraphrase used a tendentious phrase that implied a particular stance is the wrong stance. As a journalist who is aiming for balance, Fred should not have used it.
However, I think as an anti-slogan, “The science is settled” is used to describe an argument that more or less matches the one Gavin provided in his email which (evidently) declined the invitation.
The short version of the “The Science is Settled” argument is:
There is sufficient consensus on scientific points that these should no longer be discussed in the political sphere. Only policy should be discussed.
That is the main tenet of the argument.
This main “The Science is Settled” argument is often accompanied by implied accusations that anyone who wants to discuss of criticize any ‘consensus’ science is politically motivated, cherry picking etc. The discussion also generally fail to explicitly mention or engage the precise arguments advanced others and sometimes adds verbiage to include the notion that mentioning what those arguments are, or engaging them only gives the arguments credibility. These are common side flourishes. Gavins’ email contained some of these.
Whether you agree or disagree this argument, it seems to me that this is the argument that is characterized by the (admittdely snide, tendentious) anti-slogan “The Science Is Settled”.
Of course others can disagree that this is the idea conveyed by the slogan, “The Science is Settled”. One could claim it might mean “anything at all” or that it has a precise meaning other than the one I suggest. In the latter case, it should be possible to explain the meaning.
For those who want to advocate the former, I would point out that the phrase has become a slogan and it is in the nature of slogans to convey a specific meaning. “Right to Life” could mean anything at all. It could convey the notion one is against the death penalty, anti-war, for sustaining life with artificial means, or any number of things. “Pro-choice” could mean one thinks anyone should be free to choose a diet of non-stop chocolate. Or one could claim the slogans don’t convey anything at all.
These slogans certainly do convey something, and they don’t convey the notions I suggested in the first sentences of this paragraph.
Similarly, “The Science is Settled”, does convey something. It does so even if the term is embraced only by a vocal subset of people and reviled by another. And whether one likes it or not, the slogans meaning is defined by those who use it, not those who wish the slogan would go away.
Now turning to Gavin’s email: My reading of Gavin’s declination email is that he advanced the idea I have come to understand people are describing when they use the phrase (usually snidely) “The Science is Settled”. I agree Gavin would never use the phrase “the science is settled”, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t advance the argument that is– snidely– referred to as “the science is settled”. Gavin does advance that argument, sometimes at some length. For example, we can read here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/06/what-do-climate-scientists-think/#more-4284
Discussing people who Gavin views as politically motivated, he writes
They are misleading because as anyone with any familiarity with the field knows, the basic consensus is almost universally accepted. That is, the planet is warming, that human activities are contributing to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (chiefly, but not exclusively CO2), that these changes are playing a big role in the current warming, and thus, further increases in the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere are very likely to cause further warming which could have serious impacts. You can go to any standard meeting or workshop, browse the abstracts, look at any assessment, ask any of the National Academies etc. and receive the same answer. There are certainly disputes about more detailed or specific issues (as there is in any scientific field), and lots of research continues to improve our quantitative understanding of the system, but the basic issues (as outlined above) are very widely (though not universally) accepted.
It is in response to these attempts to portray the scientific community as fractured and in disagreement, that many people have tried to find quantitative ways to assess the degree of consensus among scientists on the science and, as with this new paper, the degree of credibility and expertise among the signers of various letters advocating policies.
You can agree with the substance of what Gavin wrote or not. You can notice he never uses the phrase “The science is settled”. He uses longer phrases like, “consensus among scientists on the science“.
But whether you agree with Gavin or not, this is the argument snidely referred to as “The Science is Settled” by those who disagree with Gavin. Gavin’s email to Lisbon also contained that argument.
So, I think using that phrase “The Science is Settled” to paraphrase Gavin’s email declining the invitation is not inaccurate. It’s tendentious, and snide.
Because it was tendentious and snide Fred was wrong to use that particular summary. As a journalist, he should have called Gavin, gotten quotes. Let Gavin elaborate– ask him if he really meant what that email seemed to say.
Possibly, Fred could have asked Gavin to send him the email declining and then quoted from the email.
Then readers could have read what Gavin wrote and diagnosed it themselves. You know what phrase some detractors of Gavin would have used? Yes… you know.
PDA- Keith has explained himself.
He doesn’t need to say what Fred did was wrong, over and over again. It’s done. Furthermore, when Gavin writes
“”None of the seemingly important “˜conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are “˜conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions.””
you should just chillax a bit on the fact that some people will take or mistake that for some kind of ‘settled science’ statement. It’s not rocket science. That’s what it can sound like. Similarly, when Gavin equates uncertainties in the science to the triviality of fighting over the ‘colour of a single brick in a large 19th Century building’, some readers will come away with the same impression. Not everyone is a master at teasing apart these kinds of subtleties…
I’m not sure what the goal is in telling your interlocutors to “chillax” and “get a life.” Why don’t you all chillax about climate science? Why not get a life and stop worrying about the supposed AGW ‘hoax?’
Yes, it’s not such a big deal that someone was wrong on the internet. It’s not affecting my enjoyment of life: the sun is out, and I’m about to go AFK and watch frozen New England slowly melt. The broader context, to which Bob Grumbine pointed and I much less eloquently referenced, is how science is presented in the media. If a journalist doing an inflammatory paraphrase is just being “snide and cheeky” or “making a boo-boo/no-no” it raises an interesting question about journalistic standards.
If discussing this interferes with your chillaxation, there are many other places you can go.
I don’t think AGW or anthropogenic climate change, up or down, is a hoax. And I’m as interested in misrepresentation as you seem to be. All I’m saying is lets quit with further misrepresentation before we hear from Fred. My @23 post in this thread points to a number of things which may have actually happened. And I agree with you about journalistic standards, I said so in the other thread. This episode has made me uncomfortable and I’m just trying to knit together about what went wrong. But enough with the conclusions and character assassinations already. That’s all I’m saying…
Ekk. Like to clean up that last post a bit- nevermind.
I’m not calling for Pearce’s head, and I agree with you (and Keith!) that what he did was wrong. Where I differ, with Keith at least, is just the degree of wrong-ness and the relevance to the broader subject of science journalism.
The question of whether Bill Connolley calling Fred “porky Pearce” rises to the level of “blood orgy,” is, of course, essentially subjective. I’m just pointing out the relative degree of outrage for perspective.
@Lucia
Again, this continued attempt to both eat the cake, and have it, just further proves Gavin’s original reason for not attending.
Gavin’s point was that – in his opinion – the part of the debate that might warrant some sort of reconciliation stems not from the science, but from issues and actions that are really quite separate from the science.
Now, if someone wants to attempt a reconciliation with Gavin’s viewpoint, then that someone has to accept it as a valid one meriting discussion. You (and many others in comment threads) want to portray it as arrogant and intolerant, as if he was making a comment on the unassailable strength of the science. I find this to be misinterpretation, willful or otherwise, and I also find it to be begging the question as well as intolerant of a point of view that the supposed “reconciliation” really ought to have accounted for – especially if Gavin is as important as was made out.
The continued attempt to twist his words by you and others is *precisely* the sort of manoeuvre that is at the crux of the acrimony in this “debate”. Efforts to inflame the situation further by some participants really go to show how empty the offer of “reconciliation” really was.
Lucia:
Nicely put. Time to move on.
Lucia,
The quote from Gavin you mention at the end of your comment (66) seems to describe that there exists a broad consensus amongst climate scientists about the main tenets of climate change.
I don’t think that that is what is usually meant by the snide remark “the science is settled”. When used as a derogatory “anti-slogan”, I think it means something like: There’s no uncertainy and therefore no need to discuss any of these scientific issues, with the inherent accusation of a) hiding uncertainty and b) being unscientific and c) stifling dissent.
Pointing out that broad agreement exists amongst experts about the main thrust of the theory does not conform to my perception of what is usually meant by the phrase “the science is settled”.
For all the claims of Pearce misrepresenting Gavin, I couldn’t figure out how Pearce’s paraphrase was inaccurate. I’m glad to see lucia’s post as it confirms I’m not just missing something obvious.
Gavin Overreaching
Gavin reacted to Fred Pearce’s characterization of the science as being settled by stating:
“Fred Pearce includes a statement about me that is patently untrue.
“But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, who said the science was settled so there was nothing to discuss.”
This is completely made up.”
The statement that “This is completely made up” is a ridiculous and classeless exaggeration. As Lucia points out Gavin has stated: “the basic consensus is almost universally accepted. That is, the planet is warming, that human activities are contributing to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (chiefly, but not exclusively CO2), that these changes are playing a big role in the current warming,”
To a lay person, Gavin’s statement is reasonably and easily interpreted as concluding that the science is settled. It is ridiculous to state that Pearce’s paraphrase is “completely made up.” Gavin believes that it is inaccurate in an esoteric scientific sense. That being the case, he should have asked for a clarification, which would have undoubtedly been given. All sorts of specialists are routinely misquoted or understood (lawyers for example), and when there is a legitimate misunderstanding, the proper response is to ask for a clarification by the journalist. A frontal assault, such as that by Gavin, is improper and indicative of a closed, arrogant, mindset.
JD
I think as an anti-slogan, “The science is settled” is used to describe an argument that more or less matches the one Gavin provided in his email
I think the substantive distinction airily dismissed as “more or less” is exactly where this disconnect occurs. Many commenters on this thread seem to take “the basic consensus is almost universally accepted” to mean “There’s no uncertainty and therefore no need to discuss any of these scientific issues, with the inherent accusation of a) hiding uncertainty and b) being unscientific and c) stifling dissent.”
These are actually two different statements.
> To a lay person, Gavin’s statement is reasonably and easily interpreted as concluding that the science is settled.
Sure. If that lay person had difficulties with reading comprehension and/or a pre-existing bias.
#78 Dave,
“o a lay person, Gavin’s statement is reasonably and easily interpreted as concluding that the science is settled.
Sure. If that lay person had difficulties with reading comprehension and/or a pre-existing bias.”
Dave you are unintentionally describing yourself.
JD
I agree with Bart in #74. I also think Amac (Comment#68097) over at Lucia’s thread provided a nice deconstruction that concludes:
Pearce used poor judgement in using a charged slogan to paraphrase Gavin, in my opinion. And he should have made clear that the phase was not a quote.
“”But the leaders of mainstream climate science turned down the gig, including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt indicated that those who dissent from any aspect of the field’s consensus views on global warming have nothing to contribute to advancing the science. Thus, in his view, there was nothing to discuss.”
That summary misses Gavin’s insinuation that people who disagree with him and his allies are acting in bad faith. Bud so did Pearce’s.
It’s be awesome if you could explain how you can both agree with Bart @74 and with the statement “Dr. Schmidt indicated that those who dissent from any aspect of the field’s consensus views on global warming have nothing to contribute to advancing the science,” which is pretty explicitly the antithesis of Bart’s point.
@JD
> Dave you are unintentionally describing yourself.
Or: you’re rubber and I’m glue?
You seem unable to read Gavin’s actual response and understand the simple words contained therein without passing them through some “Gavin definitely said a bad thing” filter, by way of a different quote in a different context highlighted for you by someone else. Bizarrely, you also describe Gavin asking for a simple retraction of inflammatory words ascribed to him that he did not say in deeply offensive terms.
It is people like you that are blowing this up into a massive combative issue with an irrational and counterfactual leap to defend Pearce, or even just taking the opportunity to smear Gavin now its been presented. Already the empty rhetorical seeds of the “lets just accept both sides are equally culpable” garbage are being sown.
#82 Dave H
The most inflammatory statement made is that of Gavin’s that “This is completely made up.” A simply ridiculous statement. When Gavin stops using the term “denier”, I will have more sympathy with him complaining about statements attributed to him that the science is settled.
JD
@ Bart 74
“The quote from Gavin you mention at the end of your comment (66) seems to describe that there exists a broad consensus amongst climate scientists about the main tenets of climate change.”
“pointing out that broad agreement exists…”
Keep in mind Bart that this conference wasn’t exactly about the parts of climate science that are meant to be settled settled science. It was about things like climate sensitivity and the wider unknowns. I don’t know why we even have to bring ‘the main tenets’ into it. Why did Gavin feel he had to bring it up, if that is what he was actually saying? The conference wasn’t about those things at all. It was about much more murkier stuff, and it was about getting along within a context of disagreement.
DaveH
I haven’t criticized Gavin for not attending. He is free to decline for any reason he likes. I also didn’t say what he wrote was arrogant or intolerant nor did I suggest “he was making a comment on the unassailable strength of the science.”
I also find it to be begging the question
Begging what question?
Bernie–
Nicely put. Time to move on.
I don’t disagree.
Bart 74–
There’s no uncertainy and therefore no need to discuss any of these scientific issues, with the inherent accusation of a) hiding uncertainty and b) being unscientific and c) stifling dissent.
I don’t think the phrase is used to imply that someone says there absolutely no uncertainty but rather that there is no fundamental uncertainty or in other words, no uncertainty we need to consider before moving on to discuss policy. Or, put another way that any uncertainty that exists is unimportant and that we should not waste time to discuss the uncertainty at meetings or in public. So, let’s move on to discussing policy, and when doing so, for all practical purposes, we should accept certain AGW tenets of findings as true.
It is true that many of the people who embrace the anti-slogan “The Science is Settled” also accuse some scientists of hiding uncertainty– but I don’t think merely refusing to discuss uncertainty in public or with those who think uncertainty might exist is sufficient to make something a “Science is Settled” argument.
But whether or not the anti-sloan includes the notion that scientists hide uncertainty or stifle dissent, I think advising that meetings should not focus on scientific findings that are currently debated at blogs and insinuating that people who want to discuss the topics are just cherry picking, comes pretty close to advising that publicly expression of dissent or discussion of uncertainty be made less visible. This comes pretty darn close to hiding uncertainty from the public or stiffling dissenting voices so they will not be heard by the public.
So even though I don’t think this is an essential element of “The Science Is Settled” argument, Gavin’s response happened to include this and in my view would therefor still fall under “The Science is Settled” if one insisted those additional elements are required for what he said to amount to “The Science is Settled”.
Pointing out that broad agreement exists amongst experts about the main thrust of the theory does not conform to my perception of what is usually meant by the phrase “the science is settled”.
Not by itself. But that’s not the only think Gavin did eitehr in his blog post or in his email declination. Linkiing the observation about consensus that to the notion that evidence need no longer be discussed within earshot of the public, and that the public should move on, not concern themselves with uncertainties and focus only on policy makes the full argument become “the science is settled”.
@Lucia
> I haven’t criticized Gavin for not attending.
I didn’t say you did.
> I also didn’t say what he wrote was arrogant or intolerant nor did I suggest “he was making a comment on the unassailable strength of the science.”
You expounded at length about the snide “science is settled” anti-slogan and how elements could be found in Gavin’s mail. These are the connotations it comes with – a dismissive attitude to those that would claim that uncertainty is underplayed. It is precisely the arrogance – and hubris – of the overconfident that this slogan is intended to skewer.
> Begging what question?
Presumption of premises is what I was getting at. Essentially: “Gavin declining the invitation was a refusal to discuss the points of science on offer, therefore he must think those points of science are settled, therefore his response must have meant he thought the science was settled.”
DaveH–
I do think Gavin, by using terms like “Cherry picking” was dismissive of others. But that’s hardly the same as saying he was making a comment on “the unassailable strength of the science.”
Presumption of premises is what I was getting at.
Ok. So, what premise was presumed.
I didn’t say suggest that Gavin declining the invitation was a refusal to discuss the points of science on offer. His reply says this:
None of the seemingly important “˜conflicts’ that are *perceived* in the science are “˜conflicts’ in any real sense within the scientific community, rather they are proxy arguments for political positions. No “˜conflict resolution’ is possible between the science community who are focussed on increasing understanding, and people who are picking through the scientific evidence for cherries they can pick to support a pre-defined policy position.
This amounts to saying that these aren’t points of conflict in any real sense. That is, the issues — which are scientific– and where people see conflict are– for all practical purpose– settled. Turns out in a following paragraph, he proposed that rather than discussing these, one discuss policy.
This is “The science is settled” argument. That is: those conflicts of science people are debating are settled or unimportant and we should move on to discussing policy.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/football/christina-aguilera-flubs-national-anthem-at-super-bowl/article1896544/
The Internet is now busily deconstructing this as well. I wonder what she meant by ‘watching”? Is it settled history?
Does this debate indicate that we have reached the point of diminishing returns in the science of climate change? That is that is, for practical purposes, we have reached the point of irreducible uncertainty and, as a result, the science has no more to offer to policy makers.
Lucia, Stu,
Your argument is centred on the premise that Gavin did not want to discuss (some publicly contested aspects of) the science, but keep in mind that the focus of this meeting was on reconciliation in the climate change debate. Since Gavin feels that the hypercharged nature of the debate is not primarily due to the science, but rather due to “politics”, it makes sense (in his line of thought) to find it rather useless to discuss the science but not the politics *in light of the stated purpose of the conference*.
You may not agree that the root of the conflict is political. I think the root of the conflict is direcly due to the perceived consequences of climate change and the perceived consequences of doing something about climate change are huge; and people are polarized according to their view of which consequences are worse (and then in some cases downplay the consequences of the other issue). Whether “political” is a good term for that I guess can be argued, but that’s how I see it.
Of course there are also scientific antagonists who are genuinely interested in scientific minutiae, but their role (whether they want to or not) in the hypercharged public debate is mainly to bolster one of the political sides in this debate. McIntyre is the prime example of course.
I think Gavin’s position is that scientific disputes are best handled with in scientific fora, whereas personal/ideological/ethical/political disputes are best handled in other fora.
Bart, Lucia’s points are explicitly not regarding Gavin’s reasons for declining the invitation but are, instead, about the assertions Gavin made in his email about the current state of the science and his intimated desire or recommendation to move on from scientific discourse to discussions regarding policy. Gavin’s declination is a completely superfluous matter, as are whatever his presumptions are, of the motives of others in attendance.
So, not to put too fine a point on it, I think you’ve missed Lucia’s point entirely.
” think Gavin’s position is that scientific disputes are best handled with in scientific fora, whereas personal/ideological/ethical/political disputes are best handled in other fora.”
I think ideally he is right. I just see a missed opportunity for engagement in a unique setting (which in its explicitly stated aims was not meant to be about the personal/ethical/ideological/political) which may have gone someway to recontextualise the personalisation of the debate and shake off a few preconceptions.
Like Lucia- I don’t hold anything against Gavin for not going. Personally, I would have been very surprised if he had actually gone. I do also think it’s disappointing that he did describe the conference as an exercise in talking about “irrelevant scientific ‘controversies’. Irrelevant is not the term I would use, but of course as you say- people will disagree about this. You also understand that the charge of focusing on particular results in the science has also been characterised as being politically driven by critics of the mainstream scientific community.
Speaking of acrimony:
“and people are polarized according to their view of which consequences are worse (and then in some cases downplay the consequences of the other issue).”
The non-parenthetical portion recognizes the cost/benefit policy analysis, and implies a genuine difference of opinion. This is all that needs be said.
But Bart must add (parenthetically) that some differences are different – Downplaying the other side. Somehow less than honest. (and, parenthetically, there’s no other reason to add the parenthetical portion, if not but to imply what I am describing).
Assuming Bart will cede an inability to know the hearts and minds of other men, (and in a spirit of detente) one has to ask: why?
This is a fun game!
Sorry to disappoint kdk, but I’m not much into playing games.
@93
Oh, sorry, it was hard to tell.
I take it my point stands.
Rhetoric like ‘hysterics’, ‘fangs’, ‘blood orgy’ seem just a little, um, *hyperbolic* to me, KK.
kdk33 Says:
February 7th, 2011 at 7:36 am
@93
Oh, sorry, it was hard to tell.
I take it my point stands.
//
No, kdk, Bart was just doing what Gavin did re Lisbon: your ‘point’ simply isn’t worth ‘attending’ to.
I think both Gavin and Bart are right in their respective instances.
Some of the science about AGW is ‘settled’ about as well as science gets , i.e., it’s well-supported and has withstood new data so far but formally still stands a chance of being wrong. There’s glory for you skeptics if you can successfully ride with that chance. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, that ‘the science is settled’ is a strong negative signifier in skepticland — a mere-mention-of-it stand in for everything skepticland deems risible, along with ‘Al Gore’ — seems undeniable unless you are, um, in denial of reality. It isn’t about nuance at all, it’s a parody. Which renders lucia’s verbiage kind of moot, to me.
Keith (55)
It’s hard for you to have addressed my questions when you anwer none of them. I never asked about what Pearce should have done, for instance. Nor did I dispute that you had said that Pearce had indeed made an error, a point only you seem to have missed.
It’s obvious that some errors are bigger than others, and warrant more of a response. And some are trivial, and warrant no response — your position by implication in going to ‘blood orgy’ to describe a few blogs writing a few complaints about the error. My first paper has such an error in it. If anyone were to complain about it, it’d be them who would be silly.
Given that this error warrnts no response, according to you as a journalist, I’m left wondering what sort of error a journalist would have to make before you’d say:
* He should make a correction to the article
* His editor should speak to him about upholding professional standards
* He should be suspended for a time
* He should be fired
* A few bloggers could write a few articles complaining about the erroneous article without you complaining
* A blogger could write an opinion that someone was a bad journalist without you complaining.
It would be a bonus if your answers included how they are proportional, as you ask for proportionality, to your earlier demonstrated sentiments re Morano and Fuller. Morano calling for all climate scientists to be flogged, you called ‘unnecessary roughness’. By my scale, flogging thousands of people is more severe than saying an individual, whom you agree wrote an erroneous article, was a bad journalist. Yet the latter is ‘blood orgy’, which strikes me as more severe than ‘unnecessary roughness’. Fuller condemning a generation of climate scientists as dishonest, warranted no comment from you. But a few bloggers saying a particular journalist made an error, and one blogger saying the journalist was a bad journalist is braying pack of wolves in blood orgy. Again, condemning thousands of people, with no supporting evidence, strikes me as worse than condemning one, with supporting evidence (however thin).
A particular example for you to classify since asking you to provide your own examples hasn’t gotten any response: Suppose that Pearce had put my name in place of Schmidt’s. What caliber of response would be warranted? He did, after all, talk just as much to me as he did Schmidt, and I did spend just as much time in Lisbon as Schmidt. Also something that merits no comments on a few blogs?
Mr. Grumbine, you may recall that in response to your criticism I amended my statement about ‘a generation’ to a core cadre of climate scientists. At the time you seemed satisfied with my handling of it.
May I ask why Keith is required to have an opinion on a corrected statement by a minor player who no longer even has a forum of his own?
Because if so, we should dredge up all the hyperbole about death trains, deniers and flat-earthers and seriously search for perspective on who all is coming out with how much invective with so few ties to reality.
As a blogger, you should already know that a blogger blogs what is interesting to her/him, and does not need an agenda and does not have a news hole to fill. Bloggers do not need to evenly weight content, do not need to be impartial (although I am definitely not saying Keith is partial).
I should think before trying to dictate Keith’s agenda, you should clean up your side of the street first, with people like Tim Lambert and his blogalikes.
Keith isn’t “required” to have any opinion. If he doesn’t want to answer Bob’s questions, he can decline. Since when did merely asking questions equate with an attempt to “dictate Keith’s agenda?”
There’s an awful lot of huffing and puffing in this thread that we shouldn’t even be discussing this issue. We’ve had “get a life,” “chillax,” and now a nice tu quoque. If you don’t want to hear about this, there’s lots of other things you could be doing with your time.
Invite
“Hi Gavin. You are cordially invited to Fight Club. The first rule of Fight club is that you don’t talk about (personal/ideological/ethical/political things) Fight Club.
Gavin
“So, about Fight Club…”
Tom (100)
As a statement, your revision was indeed ok with me. As I noted then, however, if you only made the correction in a private email to me, that was quite insufficient. Your condemnation was made fully publicly, and the revision should be made equally publicly. As far as I know, you have not since written an article in a comparably visible place where you publicised the change. Comment #100 on somebody else’s blog is certainly not equivalent.
I’m dictating nothing. I’m asking some pretty simple questions. Since Keith is requesting proportional response, they’re also, I think, relevant questions, as the answers will show why Keith thinks certain, specific, things are proportional. He’ll answer or not, as he chooses.
The questions about journalistic standards seem even more apt, to me, as journalistic stanrads are precisely what prompted his articles on this topic. And they also seem to be important matters as to what he blogs about. At least they do to me. Again, he may disagree, and whether he does or not, he’s still free to answer or not. Not only am I not ‘dictating’, I haven’t even threatened to hold my breath until I turn blue.
Since I don’t take up journalism or people publicising private emails on my blog, I’m not going to take up your complaints about Lambert doing things in those areas on my blog.
I do take up elementary scientific errors, such as <a href=”http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2010/09/does-lake-superior-remember-last-ice.html”>Steven Goddard</a> on Lake Superior. If you think Lambert or somebody else has made a similarly elementary error on science, by all means suggest it in a comment at my ‘question place’ post.
Mr. Grumbine, I did correct the article and commented about it in other articles I wrote and on weblogs.
Have you ever written about the spread of malaria, the disappearance of African agriculture, melting trends of Himalayan glaciers, ice mass in the Antarctic, demographic health of the polar bear or the quality of data used in paleoclimatic estimates of past temperatures?
Bart
Your argument is centred on the premise that Gavin did not want to discuss (some publicly contested aspects of) the science, but keep in mind that the focus of this meeting was on reconciliation in the climate change debate.
My argument is centered on what the sentences and phrases in explanation he sent to the Lisbon committee communicate to a reader.
I think Gavin’s position is that scientific disputes are best handled with in scientific fora, whereas personal/ideological/ethical/political disputes are best handled in other fora.
Keeping discussions about science out of science out of non-science fora, but limiting the discussion to politics in non-science fora is the essence of “The Science is Settled” argument. So to the extent that Gavin belives this, he ascribes to what is referred to by others as “The Science is Settled” argument. To the extent that he may have expressed this idea, people will translate his version of expressing the idea as “The Science is Settled”.
You may be correct about Gavin’s position. You may even agree with it. You and Gavin may not like that that view has been come to be referred to as arguing that “The Science is Settled”. What the slogan communicates may not be entirely discenrable by the words along. But someone saying that Pearce’s paraphrase is totally made up is somehow not familiar with what the expression is used to convey.
Pearce used a paraphrase that conveys the precise position you think Gavin takes.
Steve–
Meanwhile, that “˜the science is settled’ is a strong negative signifier in skepticland “” a mere-mention-of-it stand in for everything skepticland deems risible, along with “˜Al Gore’ “” seems undeniable unless you are, um, in denial of reality.
I already said Fred’s choice of that term is inappropriate. I merely disagree with why it’s inappropriate.
Many have jumped on Pearce because they insist the paraphrase is totally inaccurate and Gavin said nothing of the sort. As I see it, the paraphrase is as accurate as any paraphrase can be– but it was done using a tendentiously loaded phrase. That’s inappropriate for a journalist.
Which renders lucia’s verbiage kind of moot, to me.
I guess you have a right to think that discussing what is wrong with the choice of word– accuracy vs. tendenciousness– is moot. But, i have to ask this: moot to what evaluation?
I don’t think it’s moot with respect to questions about the reconcilliation, communication or debate about climate change. I don’t think it’s moot to determining what Pearce actually did wrong, nor to evaluating whether Gavin’s first complaint as reasonable (it wasn’t.) I don’t think it’s moot to evaluating the reasonableness of complaints at blogs like Tamino’s, Deltoid, Rabett etc.
Maybe it’s not important to note that I think Gavin’s specific complaint is unfounded and people would have known this if Gavin had just published the email he actuall sent to the committe instead of rewording in light of his objection to Pearce’s article. Maybe it’s not important to note that I think Gavin would be he could be justified in complaining about word choice– that is– a different harm.
Maybe it’s not important to point out that I think Tamino, Deltoid &etc. complaints just took Gavin’s characterization at face value based not on the communication Gavin sent to the Lisbon committee, but based on his re-worded explanation afterwards.
But then again maybe one could take the POV that whatever Pearce wrote, Gavin should have seen that as to unimportant to complain of, and later bloggers Tamino, Deltoid and Rabett should have found it too unimportant to blog about.
But Pearce wrote an article. Gavin complained. Tamino, Deltoid, Rabett etc wrote their views. Whether important or not, others are going to comment. Lots are in lots of venues. Yes. Even if this is all moot to something or other.
I see some see this as some sorting of AGW (alarmist/warmist, delete depending on your level of hysteria) in-fighting and, therefore, yet another final nail in the coffin of AGW – seeing as how the previous ‘final nail’ (of the so-called Climate-/Cru-gate) was bent on the brick wall of rational enquiries.
Or was that previous ‘final nail’ covered with whitewash (applied by those evil conspiracists) and therefore rendered unusable ?
When did words become more important than the science ? Was it when the science failed to give the ‘right’ answers ?
Robert (99):
I think we are talking past each other. You say, “Given that this error warrnts no response, according to you as a journalist…”
I never said that or implied such a thing. I just said that the “he’s rubbish” personalization of the response was over the top. Simple as that. I have no problem with anyone being critical of Pearce’s mistake. But to ignore that the tenor of criticism went well beyond that is to ignore the obvious, so I’m not sure there’s much for us to discuss.
As for all your bullet points, you want me pick which punishment I think is most appropriate for Pearce? That’s utterly ridiculous. You should consult a public editor or journalism ethicist at Poynter.
I can only tell you what I would do if it was me that did this. I would have responded by now to the criticism, and I would have called up/emailed Gavin to provide my explanation. Pearce has apparently chosen to ignore this controversy (for now), which I think is unwise, and I have no idea if he’s reached out to Gavin.
The only other thing I can say is that I used this episode in my journalism class today to talk about attribution. They got the lesson drawn from it.
Honestly, Robert, it seems the difference in opinion between you and me on this is that I’m not as frothy and up in arms as the Stoats, Deltoids, et al. I don’t attribute malice or ill motive to Pearce’s mistake. I see it for what it is: a screw-up, that should be corrected and explained. I’m just not willing to be part of the drag-his-reputation through the dirt posse. That seems to bother you.
Keeping discussions about science out of [] non-science fora, but limiting the discussion to politics in non-science fora is the essence of “The Science is Settled” argument.
(I clipped your quote above based on what I thought you meant, but please correct me if I did it wrong.)
This is actually an illuminating comment. If people really interpret “the science as settled” as meaning no more than “scientific disputes are best handled with in scientific fora, whereas personal/ideological/ethical/political disputes are best handled in other fora,” then I suppose I have no dispute.
What’s interesting is that it doesn’t seem that there were any scientific topics discussed at the Lisbon Workshop on Reconciliation in the Climate Debate. From summaries written by Judith Curry and Tallbloke, all I’m getting is some discussion of how to deal with uncertainty, post-normal science, etc. Seems the conference organizers are more or less in agreement that “the science is settled.”
I note that the New Scientist has updated the original post to include the actual text of Gavin’s response to the email.
The update to the Pearce post also shows a cross-out of the “science is settled” paraphrase.
Me: I think Gavin’s position is that scientific disputes are best handled with in scientific fora, whereas personal/ideological/ethical/political disputes are best handled in other fora.
LuciaKeeping discussions about science out of science out of non-science fora, but limiting the discussion to politics in non-science fora is the essence of “The Science is Settled” argument.
I don’t think that’s the crux of how the “science is settled” argument/anti-slogan is usually used. Rather, it is used in a derogatory way to insinuate stifling of dissent and ignorning uncertainty. At least that’s how I’ve usually seen/interpreted it as being used.
Guess our interpretations differ.
lucia #105
I’m glad we agree that ‘the science is settled’ is a ‘tendentious loaded phrase’ in the climate wars. Do you agree that journalistic due diligence would involve researching the actual views of a climate scientist, before ascribing such a stance to him?
Schmidt has been on record regarding ‘the science is settled’ since Dec 2009
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/unsettled-science/
Pearce failed to do due diligence here. Either he is clueless, even after years on the climate beat, as to the ‘tendentious loaded’ nature of the phrase ‘the science is settled’; or he was making a painfully inappropriate stab at humor; or he thinks Schmidt’s stance really can be boiled down to an unqualified claim that ‘the science is settled; or he was shit-stirring with purpose.
If the first, he’s incompetent in this matter; if the second, foolish; if the third, just wrong; if the fourth, dishonest.
After these contortions, one wonders how the word ‘settled’ can ever recover.
Playing off a fabulous Lindzen quote: ordinary people understand what settled means; scientists, apparently, don’t.
Keith (107):
It’s interesting to (finally) hear that you do think the error should be corrected. But the implication was certainly made. The implication is made by the fact that you wrote many comments about the fact that he made an error and not once mentioned that he should correct it. That in your many comments, all oprobium was reserved for those criticizing Pearce, not the error. That I observed in #3 that ‘boo boo’ was something that didn’t warrant correction, and you did not change your terminology in your response in #13, nor note that you did think a correction was warranted. Nor any response that you did think the error should be corrected in your response at #55, to my #54 where I’d observed:
<it>Your lengthier comments and strong language (“˜blood orgy’ !?) are reserved for condemning the people who object to the error “” not the error. No suggestion either that you think there should be a correction of the error.</it>
and
<it>At hand, you still haven’t addressed my question of what sort of error a journalist would have to make before, by journalistic standards, it would be reasonable for a handful of bloggers to complain about it. Nor what caliber of error it would have to be before it would be reasonable, by journalistic standards, to expect a correction to be made.</it>
As I observed in #54:
<it> The rest of us are not journalists. It would help communication if you would describe what the standards are in your profession. Us trying to guess, based on what you call a boo boo, and who you condemn is not a very efficient method.
</it>
You chose in #55 to _not_ provide that description of journalistic standards. So the communication was indeed hampered. You still choose (#107) to not provide that description. So communication will continue to be hampered.
In #107, you again demonstrate that you’re not reading what I write, and instead making up something else to answer. The bullet list was for you to provide illustrations of what you thought _did_ warrant those responses. Not to choose which ‘punishment’ you’d give Pearce. It clearly said so. You’re in no position to lay off the answer to Poynter or other either since you obviously feel qualified to decide what responses are appropriate in this case, so much so that you consider extreme language like ‘pack of braying wolves’ and ‘blood orgy’ to be appropriate descriptions of the response that did occur from Stoat et al.
Also #107, your mind reading, and plain reading, powers failed you. I’ve said nothing about how ‘frothy’ or ‘up in arms’ you _should_ be. Nor have I said that Stoat, et al., _should_ be responding as they did. The closest to any shoulds I went is that I observed that I hadn’t and wouldn’t blog about it myself (which is farther from Stoat et al., rather than closer).
In any event, let’s go back to your #13, where you mention:
<it>However, I feel the response on nearly all the AGW blogs is way out of proportion to the crime. Pearce is one of the best climate reporters out there”“he has a body of sterling work that he should be judged on. But as usual, one screw-up is magnified into “Pearcegate” and an excuse to tarnish him as “rubbish.” It’s outrageous.</it>
I’ve already questioned your characterization of ‘nearly all’, and you’ve provided no response or clarification.
I happen to agree that a single error in a single article doesn’t make someone a ‘rubbish’ journalist. Per later comments by others, there seem to be more than one error in one article involved. But, still, I’d personally look for something more systematic, or more major, than is at hand so far re. Pearce before I called him a rubbish journalist.
But proportionality is interesting, and I agree it is important and valuable. So, as I mentioned in #99, for 3 issues and your responses, we have:
Event:
1) ‘Pearcegate’
2) Morano calling for all climate scientists to be flogged
3) Fuller saying that all climate scientists for a generation were dishonest
Kloor response:
1) “braying pack of wolves” in “blood orgy”
2) “unnecessary roughness”
3) no response
I can see the relative ordering of 2 and 3 ok. But I’m rather puzzled about how you, who ask for proportional response in #13, wind up ranking 1 as so very much worse than items 2 and 3. Strikes me that an unkind characterization of a single individual for some (even if you and I agree it is insufficient) cause is quite a lot more minor than advocating the flogging of thousands of people. And if condemning the honesty of hundreds or thousands of people for no stated reason is not worth comment, it’s hard for me to see how condemning a single person for some presented reason is worth comment and characterization as ‘braying pack of wolves’ in ‘blood orgy’.
But that’s me, and you’re not me. So I’m wondering how it is you arrive at 1 being so very much worse than either 2 or 3. Or, if you don’t really, I’ll suggest you make a post of equal visibility to your labeling ‘Pearcegate’ the ‘braying pack of wolves’ explaining what you do think and either applying suitably more extreme labels to 2 and 3, or moderating your labelling of 1 to something proportional to your characterizations in 2 and 3.
Tom Fuller (104):
Your original article — http://www.examiner.com/environmental-policy-in-national/by-request-my-beliefs-on-global-warming
still says
“6. I believe that a generation of climate scientists have tried to make global warming a political football, and have exaggerated or distorted the truth to push politicians into acting more robustly, and too instill a fear-driven sense of urgency in the general public.”
Links to your more recent mentions in a full article (vs. comment #nnn buried somewhere else) would be welcome.
The number of topics I have not written on, and would not, is vast and includes almost your whole list. I’ll also observe that few of my articles are about other peoples’ errors. Only those where I think I can explain the error to middle school students, and that I think involve an interesting scientific point. And far from all of those, else I could make a career out of writing up the errors just at WUWT, vs. the handful I’ve actually done in more than two years. Some items I’ve taken up, not always because of somebody’s error, include weather vs. climate, time series analysis, exceedingly basic limnology (so basic that not only could a middle school student understand it, but that many already do), forecasting and forecast verification, ice core data, and sea ice data.
Your reply on this should be at my blog, where it’s on topic — the ‘question place’ post, rather than here, where it isn’t.
kdk33: Ordinary people also think a ‘theory’ is just another word for a ‘guess’ or, if they have a slightly larger vocabulary or heard the word on Glenn Beck’s show, a ‘hypothesis’.
Scientists know that scientific facts can only asymptotically approach the *vernacular* meanings of ‘settled’ or ‘proved’. Yet somehow they manage to keep doing research based on such facts, as shocking as that must be to you, and perhaps to Lindzen.
Do you agree that journalistic due diligence would involve researching the actual views of a climate scientist, before ascribing such a stance to him?
Sure. But it seems to me reading the email likely suffices. The fact that the notion expressed in the email is one Gavin has expressed at his blog suggests that diligence was sufficiently “due”. See my links above.
Yes. I am aware that Gavin wrote stuff that he thinks that when he advances a “The Science is Settled” argument one can’t accuse him of advancing a “The Science is Settled” argument. Nevertheless, he does advance that argument, and in this case wrote it up in an email sent to the Lisbon group.
Robert (113):
I appreciate you taking the time to express your issues in such detail. But it appears you have linked up a bunch of unrelated posts to posit a basis for for the grounds of my blog commentary related to journalism practices. You also say I have yet to address your main points.
I’ll confess that I’m also finding it difficult to follow your chain of references. That said, instead of tackling your points in a comment, let me take more time to work through your recent comments and address them in a future post within the week. When I do that, I’ll reference your recent string of comments.
Meanwhile, if you could just boil down in a more straightforward manner the issues you want me to address, I’d appreciate it.
Keith (117)
I’ll condense and simplify. My interest here is in journalistic standards.
1) What sort of error by a journalist would, you consider, warrant responses I listed. (the ‘bullet list’) Obviously something more major is required for some than others. What are examples for each?
1b) For specific example to classify, suppose Pearce had put my name in place of Schmidt’s. What response would be warranted then?
2) Above, you request proportionality of response. Please explain how your response in your original post here is proportional to your response to Marc Morano saying that all climate scientists should be flogged. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/03/02/the-flogger/
3) Last fall, you and I started talking about where in journalism a scientist could reasonably expect the science to be presented with some accuracy. That was never finished. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/09/19/gangster-climate-talk/
Some modest elaboration:
1b) Pearce talked as much to me as to Schmidt, and I spent just as much time in Lisbon as Schmidt. Same caliber of error deserving same response?
2) I see my memory was off, you called it ‘unsportsmanlike’, not ‘unnecessary roughness’.
3) Your comments and mine in 92, 93, 98, 100, 103. In my last, I observed that over 7/8ths of Wall Street Journal’s mention of climate change was in the editorial page. Scott Mandia has recently examined the WSJ editorial page, finding, let’s call it ‘rather biased’ coverage there http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/wall-street-journal-selectively-pro-science/
Keith — you’ll need to take a look in your spam bucket to get my response to your 117. I included links to clarify things.