Comments on: On Burying the Lead http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3602 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Pete Petrakis http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3602&cpage=1#comment-1802 Pete Petrakis Sun, 02 Oct 2005 02:29:39 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3602#comment-1802 Kevin, thanks very much for that article. I had been making the same points about Webster et al.'s acknowledged study limitations and caveats in an online debate forum. None of those limitations and caveats made it into any popular media accounts that I saw, and I checked a lot of them. The message that came across in those accounts was "Hurricanes are getting stronger and it's the result of global warming." By burying a major part of the story, Webster et al. bear much responsibility for the media misrepresentation of what they actually found. When discussion of climate change has become so highly politicized, it's critical to be up front about your inability to rule out periodicity because of a timeframe that's too brief to show it, and it's critical to be up front about not having enough information to attribute your findings to global warming. It is indeed irresponsible bury such critical interpretive information at the very end of an article, when most journalists will never get past the abstract, if indeed they even get past the press release issued by the journal or an investigator's home institution. Finally, considering the near-certainty that Webster et al. made themselves available for interviews with journalists in which they had ample opportunity to emphasize their study's limitations, the absence of any mention of them in popular media suggests they were glossed over and that "irresponsible" is not too strong a word. Kevin, thanks very much for that article. I had been making the same points about Webster et al.’s acknowledged study limitations and caveats in an online debate forum. None of those limitations and caveats made it into any popular media accounts that I saw, and I checked a lot of them. The message that came across in those accounts was “Hurricanes are getting stronger and it’s the result of global warming.”

By burying a major part of the story, Webster et al. bear much responsibility for the media misrepresentation of what they actually found.

When discussion of climate change has become so highly politicized, it’s critical to be up front about your inability to rule out periodicity because of a timeframe that’s too brief to show it, and it’s critical to be up front about not having enough information to attribute your findings to global warming. It is indeed irresponsible bury such critical interpretive information at the very end of an article, when most journalists will never get past the abstract, if indeed they even get past the press release issued by the journal or an investigator’s home institution.

Finally, considering the near-certainty that Webster et al. made themselves available for interviews with journalists in which they had ample opportunity to emphasize their study’s limitations, the absence of any mention of them in popular media suggests they were glossed over and that “irresponsible” is not too strong a word.

]]> By: kevin http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3602&cpage=1#comment-1801 kevin Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:32:42 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3602#comment-1801 Hey Gavin, thanks for the comments and I think all your points are valid. I'm keeping in mind that Prometheus is a science policy site and that we could/would have a different discussion on RealClimate about the same work. I think this is a very useful paper for the science literature, and I'm not debating the science as it is. If this paper was buried in JoC or JGR then I don't think we'd be having this conversation – or, rather, we'd be having a different one that would be contained within the climatology community. But Peter and group decided to put this in a very public forum, which in my opinion carries some responsibility that extends beyond the typical process of publishing research. As a climatologist I think the work is useful, but is only complete with the caveats emphasized. As an observer of science policy and politics, I know those caveats will be lost immediately on a larger, non-scientific audience. I suggest that Peter and group, because they are going public (if JoC or JGR can be considered semi-private in effect?), carry the responsibility to make sure everybody is fully aware and appreciative of the caveats. Burying them at the end of a technical article does not work toward that goal. Hey Gavin, thanks for the comments and I think all your points are valid. I’m keeping in mind that Prometheus is a science policy site and that we could/would have a different discussion on RealClimate about the same work. I think this is a very useful paper for the science literature, and I’m not debating the science as it is. If this paper was buried in JoC or JGR then I don’t think we’d be having this conversation – or, rather, we’d be having a different one that would be contained within the climatology community. But Peter and group decided to put this in a very public forum, which in my opinion carries some responsibility that extends beyond the typical process of publishing research. As a climatologist I think the work is useful, but is only complete with the caveats emphasized. As an observer of science policy and politics, I know those caveats will be lost immediately on a larger, non-scientific audience. I suggest that Peter and group, because they are going public (if JoC or JGR can be considered semi-private in effect?), carry the responsibility to make sure everybody is fully aware and appreciative of the caveats. Burying them at the end of a technical article does not work toward that goal.

]]> By: Gavin http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3602&cpage=1#comment-1800 Gavin Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:44:13 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3602#comment-1800 Kevin, you are being a little unfair, and (to a small degree) confusing the issue. Firstly, the caveats are discussed very clearly, and, just as clearly, they can't have been squeezed into the (very short) abstract. Secondly, you overemphasize the degree to which there is multi-decadal variability in the global tropical mean. There clearly is such variability in the Atlantic - which is clearly what you are predominantly referring to (although it only explains a portion of recent changes), and there clearly is in the Pacific. However, the mechanisms in both regions are different, and they appear to operate independently. Thus averages over the whole of the tropics will tend to reduce the influence of such variability - which is why the Webster et al results are so interesting. There remains the remote possibility that all of the indpendent multi-decadal osciallations are coincidentally in sync for these few decades, but as Webster et al clearly state "this is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record". I therefore don't think that your charge of researcher irresponsibility can stick. Kevin, you are being a little unfair, and (to a small degree) confusing the issue. Firstly, the caveats are discussed very clearly, and, just as clearly, they can’t have been squeezed into the (very short) abstract. Secondly, you overemphasize the degree to which there is multi-decadal variability in the global tropical mean. There clearly is such variability in the Atlantic – which is clearly what you are predominantly referring to (although it only explains a portion of recent changes), and there clearly is in the Pacific. However, the mechanisms in both regions are different, and they appear to operate independently. Thus averages over the whole of the tropics will tend to reduce the influence of such variability – which is why the Webster et al results are so interesting. There remains the remote possibility that all of the indpendent multi-decadal osciallations are coincidentally in sync for these few decades, but as Webster et al clearly state “this is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones (18, 30), although attribution of the 30-year trends to global warming would require a longer global data record”. I therefore don’t think that your charge of researcher irresponsibility can stick.

]]>