Comments on: Spinning Science http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: TokyoTom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8491 TokyoTom Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:42:23 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8491 Jim, nice try. First, what the Bush administration has done to manage information is doesn`t like has been pervasive and comes from the very top. We have here one press release that that eagle eyes Roger has caught and rightly criticized, with you and others playing precisely the role of righteous indignation. But the actual underlying paper was released and is available to all. Is this the start of an avalanche showing how "AGW" has been cooked up by scientists looking for handouts, and that it is contradicted by all of the actual underlying published work? Hardly. If this was a real problem, presumably all of the inquiring minds out there would have been able to sift through all of the smikoing guns over the past 30 years. "This realization calls into question the very foundations of the AGW argument!" Okay, show me all of the scientists lining up to support Kossin. But anyway, explain to me again how you reach this conclusion? All this does is show how desperately you want not to accept the foundations of the AGW argument. I bet Roger could send you a few links that supports why HE accepts them, even while he can fairly criticize Kossin`s press release. A little perspective may be in order. Regards, Tom Jim, nice try. First, what the Bush administration has done to manage information is doesn`t like has been pervasive and comes from the very top. We have here one press release that that eagle eyes Roger has caught and rightly criticized, with you and others playing precisely the role of righteous indignation.

But the actual underlying paper was released and is available to all. Is this the start of an avalanche showing how “AGW” has been cooked up by scientists looking for handouts, and that it is contradicted by all of the actual underlying published work? Hardly. If this was a real problem, presumably all of the inquiring minds out there would have been able to sift through all of the smikoing guns over the past 30 years.

“This realization calls into question the very foundations of the AGW argument!”

Okay, show me all of the scientists lining up to support Kossin. But anyway, explain to me again how you reach this conclusion? All this does is show how desperately you want not to accept the foundations of the AGW argument. I bet Roger could send you a few links that supports why HE accepts them, even while he can fairly criticize Kossin`s press release. A little perspective may be in order.

Regards,

Tom

]]> By: TokyoTom http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8490 TokyoTom Sun, 04 Mar 2007 07:20:16 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8490 Roger: "I am going to speculate that because the press release errs on the side of emphasizing a global warming connection where there is in fact none indicated in the paper that there will be little concern expressed by the scientific community about its inaccuracies." And I am going to speculate that you are right, largely because the scientists are not PR experts focussed on the intricacies of press releases, and are more concerned about actually discussing the science. There is of course a healthy discussion of the science described in the kossin et al. piece over at RealClimate, with nary a mention of the press release: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/hurricane-heat/ Are you suggesting we need greater government regulation of press releases, and greater review of press releases, especially those relating to hurricanes? More government funding for public policy experts? When you say that this is a case of "a press release completely misrepresenting the science in the paper that it is presenting", are you saying that exaggeration is perfectly appropriate in public policy blogs discussing press releases? Regards, TT Roger:

“I am going to speculate that because the press release errs on the side of emphasizing a global warming connection where there is in fact none indicated in the paper that there will be little concern expressed by the scientific community about its inaccuracies.”

And I am going to speculate that you are right, largely because the scientists are not PR experts focussed on the intricacies of press releases, and are more concerned about actually discussing the science.

There is of course a healthy discussion of the science described in the kossin et al. piece over at RealClimate, with nary a mention of the press release:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/hurricane-heat/

Are you suggesting we need greater government regulation of press releases, and greater review of press releases, especially those relating to hurricanes? More government funding for public policy experts?

When you say that this is a case of “a press release completely misrepresenting the science in the paper that it is presenting”, are you saying that exaggeration is perfectly appropriate in public policy blogs discussing press releases?

Regards,

TT

]]> By: Paddik J http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8489 Paddik J Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:22:14 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8489 I'm a newbie to these discussions, so first, what is a "violation of the Tropical Storms list . . ." and why is it some kind of crime? Second, I have to rather less politely second Roger's assessment of Chris Mooney's comments. For a guy who regularly flogs Bush-Cheney, Inc. for its anti-science policies and mealy-mouthed rhetoric, his indefensible defense of clearly distortionistic spinning is just plain disingenuous. Jim Clark is also on the money: Misrepresentation should not be tolerated from any quarter, per-i-od. I’m a newbie to these discussions, so first, what is a “violation of the Tropical Storms list . . .” and why is it some kind of crime?

Second, I have to rather less politely second Roger’s assessment of Chris Mooney’s comments. For a guy who regularly flogs Bush-Cheney, Inc. for its anti-science policies and mealy-mouthed rhetoric, his indefensible defense of clearly distortionistic spinning is just plain disingenuous. Jim Clark is also on the money: Misrepresentation should not be tolerated from any quarter, per-i-od.

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8488 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:08:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8488 Henry- Thanks for your comments. Yes, PW's email weas referring to Kossin and the TS list, how do I know this? I am on the TS list and that is the only place that emails have been exchanged on involved both me and PW. It is indeed unfortunate that PW made that allusion on our site, but it is out there and being discussed not only on this blog but elsewhere. My efforts to clarify seek to stay well within the bounds of the TS list, so yes, absolutely I think my comments are in order. I respect that you might have a different view. Thanks for your participation. Henry- Thanks for your comments. Yes, PW’s email weas referring to Kossin and the TS list, how do I know this? I am on the TS list and that is the only place that emails have been exchanged on involved both me and PW.

It is indeed unfortunate that PW made that allusion on our site, but it is out there and being discussed not only on this blog but elsewhere. My efforts to clarify seek to stay well within the bounds of the TS list, so yes, absolutely I think my comments are in order. I respect that you might have a different view.

Thanks for your participation.

]]> By: Henry Molvar http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8487 Henry Molvar Fri, 02 Mar 2007 14:05:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8487 Correction to link. Correction to link.

]]> By: Nick Savvudes http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8486 Nick Savvudes Fri, 02 Mar 2007 05:12:20 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8486 I'm quite impressed with even handed analysis showed here. It is fortunate that we have the electonic reasources to be able to distribute and dicuss such issues. This sort of discussion really demonstrates the strength of diversity in science and highlights that monocultures are bad for science and progress in general. Tim Clear and Joe Bradley raise valid points, the source or funding of science shouldn't matter if the science is strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. This concept though seems alien to the mass media. I’m quite impressed with even handed analysis showed here. It is fortunate that we have the electonic reasources to be able to distribute and dicuss such issues. This sort of discussion really demonstrates the strength of diversity in science and highlights that monocultures are bad for science and progress in general. Tim Clear and Joe Bradley raise valid points, the source or funding of science shouldn’t matter if the science is strong enough to stand up to scrutiny. This concept though seems alien to the mass media.

]]> By: Henry Molvar http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8485 Henry Molvar Fri, 02 Mar 2007 04:41:53 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8485 Roger Peilke Jr. to all Are you referring to the Tropical Storms Mailing List (TSML) of William Thorson? I don't see anything in the Peter Webster comment regarding what Jim Kossin may or may not think. If anything, your comments bringing up the TS list are out of order, don't you think? Roger Peilke Jr. to all

Are you referring to the Tropical Storms Mailing List (TSML) of William Thorson?

I don’t see anything in the Peter Webster comment regarding what Jim Kossin may or may not think. If anything, your comments bringing up the TS list are out of order, don’t you think?

]]> By: Tim Clear http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8484 Tim Clear Fri, 02 Mar 2007 02:53:01 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8484 While it is certainly interesting that Dr. Kossin has not responded here, Joe Bradley also raises a very good point - co2science frequently has alternative but valid analyses from studies that have different "conclusions" from their data... While it is certainly interesting that Dr. Kossin has not responded here, Joe Bradley also raises a very good point – co2science frequently has alternative but valid analyses from studies that have different “conclusions” from their data…

]]> By: Roger Pielke, Jr. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8483 Roger Pielke, Jr. Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:30:52 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8483 All- Since has come up here and elsewhere, on Peter Webster's submission suggesting what Jim Kossin may or may not believe, let me first say that it is a violation of the Tropical Storms list to share what is said there in public. In my view Peter's comment here violates that policy. But I won't compound his violation by doing the same thing. Let me just say that his comment is misleading at best. Were I a judge I'd tell the jury to disregard that submission;-) Really, it adds absolutely no information of use to these discussions and is more likely to mislead than anything else. The press release is a misrepresentation of the paper (as anyone who reads both can see). Thanks! All-

Since has come up here and elsewhere, on Peter Webster’s submission suggesting what Jim Kossin may or may not believe, let me first say that it is a violation of the Tropical Storms list to share what is said there in public.

In my view Peter’s comment here violates that policy. But I won’t compound his violation by doing the same thing. Let me just say that his comment is misleading at best.

Were I a judge I’d tell the jury to disregard that submission;-) Really, it adds absolutely no information of use to these discussions and is more likely to mislead than anything else. The press release is a misrepresentation of the paper (as anyone who reads both can see).

Thanks!

]]> By: Joe Bradley http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4134&cpage=1#comment-8482 Joe Bradley Thu, 01 Mar 2007 23:56:24 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=4134#comment-8482 Dear Mr. Webster, I have to disagree with your assertion "Don't you think it is the scientist him/hersefl who should determine if the paper was misprepresented?". People other than the author, with different perspectives, might very well be able to provide insights that the author him/herself may have missed. However, in this particular case in section 4 the authors directly contradict the press release. Dear Mr. Webster,

I have to disagree with your assertion “Don’t you think it is the scientist him/hersefl who should determine if the paper was misprepresented?”. People other than the author, with different perspectives, might very well be able to provide insights that the author him/herself may have missed. However, in this particular case in section 4 the authors directly contradict the press release.

]]>