Comments jfleck has made

the solution space

"The ultimate solution is for the general public to become more savvy about how science works."

This would be nice, but having toiled in these trenches for years and also looked at the data on public understanding of science, I think it's fair to say that this is a false hope.

This is a specific case of a more general argument: "If the general public became more savvy about X, then the problem at hand would be easier to solve." This argument is made about a huge range of issues. The problem is that most people are not savvy about most things, and never will be. What we need, I think, is a set of solutions that are robust to this reality.On Climate whiplash posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

straw man

As I responded to Eli over at Fleck's, the good Rabbett is deploying a straw man. None of the principles in this argument are arguing in favor of adaptation at the expense of mitigation. That's a straw man.

But the willful deployment of this argument over and over again has resulted in a quite demonstrable abandonment of adaptation on the part of what David calls "green commentators". It takes two forms - intellectually dishonest lip service (the David Roberts approach, in which one pretends to believe in it, then launches an attack every time anyone brings up its importance) or outright hostility, the approach of the more intellectually honest commentators.On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

which solutions?

"In short, the solutions he advocates are the same ones pushed by just about everyone in the climate debate: a mix of adaptation and mitigation."

If you really believe that, your readers would be well served if you spent a little more time on the the "adaptation" side of the ledger yourself. I see lots of advocacy of mitigation in your work, but adaptation not so much.

Actions speak louder than words.
On L.A. Times mischaracterizes Pielke Jr.'s arguments in such a way as to make them newsworthy posted 1 year, 8 months ago 17 Responses

the self-referential nature of space research

Andrew -

I cut my journalistic teeth covering NASA's unmanned planetary missions, so I acknowledge a bias up front against the human space flight program. But one of the things that this example makes crystal clear is the self-referential nature of this sort of space research. We send creatures into space (human or otherwise) in order to gather data about what happens when we send creatures into space.

But the whole entrenched nature of the enterprise makes it impossible to accept the fundamental thing we have learned from all that research - that space is an expensive and dangerous place for creatures.On NASA has bold plans to ... send rodents into orbit posted 1 year, 12 months ago 12 Responses

a suggested skeptic

Andrew -

If you're willing to expand the boundaries slightly, you might try Petr Chylek at Los Alamos.On Search for local climate skeptic in Texas proves fruitless posted 2 years ago 61 Responses

our misunderstanding

David -

Maybe I misunderstand your role as a journalist.

There is currently a large and fascinating debate going on about the future of the energy component of the world's economic structure. There are thoughtful and interesting people on all sides of this debate. Some smart people serious about dealing with climate change think nuclear power is a reasonable path. Other smart people serious about dealing with climate change think decentralized power generation and conservation are the key. The outcome is undetermined. I view a journalist's job as to seriously entertain what all the smart and reasonable people are saying, and to try to share that with his/her readers, so they can better understand the terms of the debate.

My frustration with your work here and elsewhere is that you have determined who you believe is right in these debates. So rather than thoughtfully entertaining Brand's argument, for example (or Pielke's) you use dismissive labels. That's a sort of journalistic hubris that I do not think serves your readers well.On Sigh posted 2 years, 9 months ago 22 Responses

not about Roger

This isn't about Roger. It's about this very piece which, aside from a single paragraph (and a good one) addressing the substance of your argument against nuclear power, is all about tribal labels. It's not an argument, it's a substitute for an argument. The irony here is that you criticize others for using the same technique that is the basis for your own rhetorical style. You see it in others, and you know it's wrong when they do it, but you just can't see it in your own work.On Sigh posted 2 years, 9 months ago 22 Responses

What was actually agreed to

It's worth being careful here about what the memorandum of understanding actually says:

They will first set an overall regional goal. They will then develop, over the next 18 months, "a design for a regional market-based multi-sector mechanism, such as a load-based cap and trade program, to achieve the regional GHG reduction goal."

Monday's announcement is clearly a significant first step, with both substantive and politically symbolic importance. But there's a long path between the MOU an an actual cap-and-trade system.On The left coast's answer to RGGI posted 2 years, 9 months ago 1 Response

context, please

Benny -

Some context here, please. Roger's not using the passage you selectively quote from to label or criticize Oppenheimer. He's merely pointing out Chris Mooney's double standard: labeling the conservative connections of scientists like Legates,  with whom he disagrees, while not labeling the liberal connections of the scientists like Oppenheimer, with whom he agrees. Which, ironically, is precisely the tactic David has used here.On Our old friend posted 2 years, 10 months ago 22 Responses

ad hom

Benny -

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case."* What other relevance is there to linking Roger to the Republicans and right other than to denigrate his views without actually addressing them? "Guilt by association" is a classic ad hominem. You've done exactly that, but more explicitly than David, in your comments. The right likes Roger, therefore his ideas can be dismissed. It's an appealing shortcut, but is clearly insufficient.

That's fine for you to do that if you want, Benny, but David's a journalist. Journalists have special obligations in this regard - to address substance, rather than play to the prejudices of their audience.

* http://www.answers.com/ad+hominem&r=67On Our old friend posted 2 years, 10 months ago 22 Responses

who'd the Democrats invite?

David -

I'm sorry, but this is just a cheap ad hominem. Great red meat for the Grist audience, but this can hardly be called journalism.

If you're going to play this game, the only way this makes any sense as a line of argument is if you are also willing to make the same implicit argument against the others who have been invited to testify. "I hear from reliable sources that the Democrats on the committee specifically requested Piltz."

What matters here is not who invited who, but what they actually say. Roger's testimony is available. How about a critique of the testimony, rather than an ad hominem attack?On Our old friend posted 2 years, 10 months ago 22 Responses

the tail

Eli says - "If statements from the tail are not challenged, and when necessary worse, the lurkers will think the tail is talking truth."

But in the exchange which triggered this, David was defending "statements from the tail" - in this case his tail, not theirs. That was doing the lurkers on his tail of the distribution a tremendous disservice. The lurkers here, given their position in this particular bell curve, have a far greater need to understand the shortcomings of those pronouncements on their own side of the tail. This is Grist, not Tech Central Station. Its' readers are likely to know already that the Limbaugh hordes are idiots.

More importantly, thought, they need to have the middle explained to them well - not dismissed with a journalistic wave of the hand based on one's "informed gut" when the middle conflicts with the views of those out with you on your tail of the distribution, as David argued was appropriate.On Fun posted 2 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

on tribal warfare

David -

On the "Athenian salon," I'm not sure I qualify. I've spent my time in the tribal wars. When I began writing about climate seriously a few years back, I had great fun whacking down the denialists. So I plead guilty here to doing exactly the same thing I'm criticizing others for doing. I've largely given it up after concluding that it served no real purpose - that I was dealing with one tail of the statistical distribution, where minds will not be changed, and the more interesting discussion - and by that I mean both scientifically interesting as well as "policy relevant" interesting - was happening in the middle - that is, in the sphere of science within but tugging at the edges of the IPCC-style consensus.

You asked for examples of the sort of centrist skeptic scientists I'm talking about, whose work I find to be out of step with the consensus, but interesting enough to pay attention to. I'll give two examples.

The first would be Roger Pielke Sr., whose continued niggling on the effects of land use changes has my attention. The consensus, as expressed by the IPCC and NAS reports, suggests that the effect is probably negligible enough relative to greenhouse forcing as to be ignorable for policy purposes. But the consensus also clearly acknowledges significant uncertainty, leaving room for interesting discussion.

The second would be Kerry Emanuel, whose hurricane work has my attention. The consensus, as expressed by the IPCC and more recently the WMO, suggests that the effect is probably negligible enough relative to other climate change problems as to be ignorable for policy purposes. But the consensus also clearly acknowledges significant uncertainty, leaving room for interesting discussion.

The literature is regularly full of examples like this: James Annan's work suggesting upper limits on climate sensitivity (OK, it's not in the literature, but I'm willing to treat it like it is); Petr Chylek's work questioning the Greenland temperature trend; the various teams reporting accelerating Greenland ice cap melting; the Mann, Cane, Zebiak, Clement work raising the possibility of serious drought where I live because of climate change; Marty Hoerling's amazing paper using the IPCC climate runs to suggest dramatic decreases in Colorado River flow over the next century (eek!); the various analyses suggesting more El Ninos and therefore greater southwest precipitation.

Those that are of relevance to my audience (New Mexicans), I write about, trying to explain both what the new research suggests, and how it fits into or conflicts with the consensus. When the new work suggests things will be "worse than we thought," I get beat up by the "Limbaugh hordes". When the new works suggests things will be "not as bad as we thought," I get beat up by the "dirty hippies". This is the classic response one would expect based on the work of Sarewitz - that people with strongly held views on a subject will pick and choose among the science, tending to believe that which supports their views and dismissing that which conflicts. Journalism isn't much good in reaching those people. Instead, I'm hoping to communicate to those in fat middle of the bell curve of public opinion, helping those who chose to actually read the work to better understand what the science actually says.

There's good evidence from the literature on the public understanding of science that what I'm attempting here is futile, that the "cognitive misers" out there won't take the time to seriously read about the science, instead taking their cues from the various opinion leaders. But I'm in denial about that, as I've got no other marketable skills.On Fun posted 2 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

believing your own straw man

While you're busy in tribal warfare against the Limbaugh hordes, you're missing out completely on the serious business going on far closer to the center among far more reasonable people. You keep trying to pull this discussion back to the Limbaugh hordes and the tribal warfare at the fringe, which is an easy battle to fight because they're idiots. But again, that's making the mistake of lumping all one's opponents in with the most venal and stupid of them. I think you need to recognize the far more interesting, subtle and important discussion nearer the center, where I believe the real action is right now.

The fact that you so completely missed the point of Revkin's "center" piece illustrates the danger to your own side of the argument in continuing to go after the Limbaugh hordes' red flag.

As you know from the polling data, a significant majority in the U.S, believes the scientific consensus. In the public mind, you've already won on the science. As Matthew Nisbet's repeated appeal to the data points out, people's unwillingness to act is based on something other than a sort of Limbaugh-horde-fueled misrepresentation of the science.On Fun posted 2 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

on consensus

David -

Don't you think it's a bit inconsistent to go on right wing talk radio and trumpet the importance and value of the IPCC consensus, while at the same time here, among friends, expressing a complete willingness to abandon consensus findings when a scientific outlier (hurricane-global warming link) meets your needs?

It's obvious that you've got the high ground with IPCC-style consensus. Why are you so easily willing to cede it by turning to the dueling-scientific-outlier trope?On Fun posted 2 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

a classic cherrypick

David -

This is a textbook example of what I'm talking about. You've chosen to hang your hat on a good paper by a terrific group of scientists which is one of a number of papers out there right now coming to different conclusions.

Given that there is no clear consensus in the literature as a whole, one has two choices: do what you have done, which is pick the horse you think is going to win, or do what your fellow GristBlogger Andrew Dessler suggests, which is to look for a clearly articulated consensus view, as articulated by an expert panel (in this the WMO has stepped into the breach), which says:

"A consensus of 125 of the world's leading tropical cyclone researchers and forecasters says that no firm link can yet be drawn between human-induced climate change and variations in the intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones."

You're free to cherry-pick a particular paper that supports your view if you want, but in so doing you lose any moral authority to criticize the other guys when they do the same. And they do it an awful lot more than your side does. That's why this seems to me like such an ill-advised tactic.

In this case, though, I'm not sure it's even a very good cherry-pick. That's why your criticism of Roger Pielke Jr. is a little cheap, given that he's only pointing out the obvious, which the Daily Camera reporter should have noticed for herself: this paper is about attribution of sea surface temperature change, not hurricane intensity. The paper's final paragraph makes that abundantly clear. Roger's not disputing what the scientists said. He's merely pointing out to the reporter what the paper actually says.

I'm curious as to how you were confident enough about what Wigley meant to insert the parenthetical phrase you did into his quote. It wasn't there in the original, and the following paragraph (not to mention the paper itself) suggests to me that Wigley was more likely to have been talking about sea surface temperature in the quote you cite, not hurricanes.

Whatever. As a journalist, I'd certainly never insert a parenthetical like that into a quote unless I was darn sure that's really what the speaker meant.On The former says nothing about the latter posted 2 years, 10 months ago 21 Responses

the problem with this argument

David -

The problem with this line of argument is that as soon as you sanction what Al Gore does here, you've sanctioned a general type of argument: "I believe, in this particular area of scientific uncertainty, the likely outcome of ongoing research is likely to be X, and we should therefore base our policy response on X." I don't think Inhofe is the best example, but the case of Benny Peiser's obsession with solar influence might be a better one. Benny's happy to cherrypick research on one side of this question (big solar influence on warming) and use it, based on his years of expertise, to argue that that's where he thinks the science is heading. As soon as you sanction Gore's use of the tactic, you've no grounds on which to argue against Benny's use of the same line of argument.

That's precisely the recipe for gridlock on "scientized" policy debates, which Dan Sarewitz has so eloquently demonstrated:

http://www.cspo.org/ourlibrary/articles/EnvironControv.ht...

Andrew Dessler is absolutely correct that we really have no choice in these debates but to try our best to identify and work within IPCC-style consensus.

Unfortunately, Sarewitz's argument and my own personal experience as a journalist covering these controversies convinces me that the sort of thing we're talking about here - picking outliers that support one's value positions - is an inevitable state of affairs. Your willingness to do it, and endorse it, despite the obvious sophistication of your understanding of the issues, is one more bit of empirical evidence in support of what Sarewitz is saying.On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

a disagreement

Andy -

This is probably a bad day for me to be calling you out as a stupid fool :-) but I think your argument that Revkin is confusing science and values misses the point.

What Revkin is doing, I think, is explaining things in terms, not of the science, but of the frames by which the science is explained, understood, and discusssed by those in the media/political/policy arena.

You are correct that decisions about climate change action are determined by values, not science. But Revkin's article recognizes a reality that scientists have a difficult time with: that people's values govern the way they view the science. Thus the contrast he sets up in his second and third paragraphs - between "environmental campaigners, former Vice President Al Gore and some scientists" on one hand and "Conservative politicians and a few scientists, many with ties to energy companies" on the other. These two groups' views have dominated the public debate, and neither is in concert with the IPCC.

Revkin is essentially explaining that, in the public discourse, there is a new and more vocal crew essentially trying to frame the science in way uncolored by either extremist value position: in essence, an embrace of the IPCC.On It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 11 months ago 47 Responses