Purists Who Demand that Facts be “Correct”

May 28th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Over at Seed Magazine in a collection of views on “framing,” Penn State climatologist Michael Mann explains why it was necessary to misrepresent what the IPCC does on the cover of his co-authored book titled “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming”:

Often, in our communication efforts, scientists are confronted with critical issues of language and framing. A case in point is a book I recently co-authored with Penn State colleague Lee Kump, called Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming. The purists among my colleagues would rightly point out that the potential future climate changes we describe, are, technically speaking, projections rather than predictions because the climate models are driven by hypothetical pathways of future fossil fuel burning (i.e. conceivable but not predicted futures). But Dire Projections doesn’t quite roll off the tongue. And it doesn’t convey — in the common vernacular — what the models indicate: Climate change could pose a very real threat to society and the environment. In this case, use of the more technically “correct” term is actually less likely to convey the key implications to a lay audience.

As one of those “purists” who would like to receive information that is technically “correct” I probably can judge that book by its cover.

In contrast, in another commentary on framing at Seed, ASU science policy expert Clark Miller suggests an alternative, richer view of framing:

Two competing models of framing exist. The first views framing as a tactical choice in communication. Spinning information to comport with culturally embedded narratives purportedly raises its credibility with target audiences. This model presumes an ignorant and uninformed public, with all the dangers that implies for democracy. I reject this model.

The second model views framing, instead, as how humans make sense of and give meaning to events in the world — the lens through which they interpret disparate observations, models, data, and evidence in light of their values. This model posits framing as an ineradicable element of reasoning, even in science, and a facility for rich, nuanced storytelling as a foundation for human community.

Both models recognize that humans structure their understanding of policy through narrative and story. Rather than exploiting this structure for political gain, however, the second model acknowledges that any specific policy frame is, at best, partial and incomplete. Any frame reflects only one way of looking at a policy problem, leaving out potentially critical pieces of knowledge and significance.

17 Responses to “Purists Who Demand that Facts be “Correct””

    1
  1. jae Says:

    I don’t think “framing” is a scientific concept. In fact, it is the complete opposite of science, in my mind. If a scientist wants to put on a politician’s hat, he can talk about framing, but he should be honest enough to admit, up front, that he has taken off his scientific hat and has become a politician.

    That is precisely the downfall of so many of the “climate scientists.” And I really don’t think they even understand this very obvious point. Perhaps they had bad training as scientists…

  2. 2
  3. jae Says:

    Maybe I’m just old and delusional, but I think many of the proselytizing “climate scientists of doom” will relatively soon be viewed by the scientific community in the same way as the cold fusion scientists are currently viewed.

    SNIP (no name calling please)

    Of course, the general public a majority of whom don’t even know who the vice president is, won’t notice.

  4. 3
  5. Sylvain Says:

    Doesn’t these to quote show the difference between what an activist scientist is and what a conscientious scientist is.

    The activist wish to blur the reality to compel action (and maybe in some occasion manipulate the science to achieve a desired result, while the conscientious prefer to let the dice fall where they may.

  6. 4
  7. Kmye Says:

    I know the question posed here is an ethical one, but on the pragmatic side of things, Mann’s approach undoubtedly WORKS.

    I won’t argue against the fact that that both on the internet and real life, there are many skeptics or “deniers” out there who are completely scientifically illiterate and issue-specifically ignorant, yet vehemently convinced of (catastrophic) AGW’s unreality and the lack of value of ANY legislation regarding it.

    But there are at least as many, if not more, people out there on “the other side” (as if there were just two “sides” to it) of this issue who are just as illiterate and ignorant, and just as certain of AGW’s certainty and the beneficence and absolute necessity of any and ALL carbon-related legislation and international treaties. I really believe the existence of a great portion of this group of people is due to the factually disingenuous hard sell coming from not only the media, but activist-scientists like Mann and Hansen.

    So, as I believe from what I’ve gathered that at least Mann and Hansen truly believe in the catastrophic and immediate nature of AGW, I have to give them a little respect, looking at things from a pragmatic sense, as their tack on things, combined with an ignorant and/or complicit media and political establishment, has at least to this point been working splendidly, and I give that respect despite my utter disgust for their methods and personal belief their credentials and positions should be revoked, especially after they’ve admitted such methods…

  8. 5
  9. Len Ornstein Says:

    Unfortunately, the purist position on the difference between the connotations of “predictions” and “projections”, focuses on the WRONG issue:

    The very best predictions/projections in science are, to some degree, uncertain. It’s the honesty in conveying degrees of certainty/uncertainty (by a scientist or non-scientist) that’s a fair target for criticism – NOT the subtleties of the meanings of these two words.

    IF an honest account is conveyed, of magnitudes of risks, rewards and uncertainty that are associated with what science seems to ‘reveal’, AN ACTIVIST SCIENTIST IS A BOON TO SOCIETY!

  10. 6
  11. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Len-

    The issue here is not semantic. The issue is a scientist admitting that one presentation is “technically” correct but expressing a preference for what he admits is an incorrect presentation in order to covey implications to the public.

    Quite apart from this context on this blog we’ve hashed over semantic and substantive issues related to prediction/projection on many occasions.

  12. 7
  13. lucia Says:

    The irony is that if those who observe projections are high relative to observations call them “predictions”, they are scolded for not understanding the distinction between projections and predictions. Yet, we see that, for all practical purposes, activist-blogger scientists do portray them as predictions.

    So, they may not be IPCC predictions. But there are sure lots of scientists who communicate them as predictions. Maybe all Mann means is that his prediction is that earth’s temperature will vary as described in IPCC projections. That would mean that both the word “prediction” and “projection” apply.

  14. 8
  15. jasg Says:

    Jae
    read this quote from Wikipedia which fairly reflects the cold fusion debacle:
    “Many groups trying to replicate Fleischmann and Pons’ results found alternative explanations for their original positive results, like problems in the neutron detector in the case of Georgia Tech or bad wiring in the thermometers at Texas A&M.[107] The replication effort in 1989 at Caltech found that an apparent excess heat was caused by failure to stir the electrolyte[108]; however, Fleischmann later responded that his original experiments had been adequately stirred by the bubbles of evolved deuterium gas, as shown by dye diffusion.[109] Positive cold fusion results, when not retracted, have been widely considered to be explainable by undiscovered experimental error, and in some cases, errors were discovered or reasonably postulated.[110]

    Among those who continue to believe claims of Cold Fusion are not attributable to error, some possible theoretical interpretations of the experimental results have been proposed.[107] As of 2002, according to Gregory Neil Derry, they were all ad hoc explanations that didn’t explain coherently the given result, they were backed by experiments that were of low quality or non reproducible, and more careful experiments to test them had given negative results; these explanations had failed to convince the mainstream scientific community.[107] Since cold fusion is such an extraordinary claim, most scientists would not be convinced unless either high-quality convincing data or a compelling theoretical explanation were to be found.[111]”

    In other words – to frame it – the original results were replicated by many groups, and they still are being investigated around the world, but because it doesn’t seem theoretically possible, mainstream science demands the finding of sources of error. This is the well-known group think mentality that if the prevailing theory is well-established then the data must be wrong. An attitude you are usually one the first to complain about. Easy to fall into this trap isn’t it? In fact, as Wikipedia relates quite well, research on cold fusion is still ongoing up to 2009 and is still producing surprising results that aren’t readily explicable.

  16. 9
  17. dean Says:

    “Dire Predictions” is a laymens book, not a technical journal, and when I went to dictionary.com, ‘projection’ is listed as a synonym for ‘prediction.’ You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. It would be appropriate for the book to have a note somewhere indicating that the terms have a different meaning in a scientific context, but the intended audience, there is no difference.

  18. 10
  19. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    -9-Dean

    Thanks. I actually agree with your views on prediction/projection. Had Mann made the same case, I’d have no problem with his comments. However, he maintains that the terms are different and one is technically correct whereas the other is not, but he chose the incorrect term (in his view) in order to shape public opinion. The issue here is Mann’s revealed thinking, not a semantic point.

  20. 11
  21. Mark Bahner Says:

    “‘Dire Predictions’ is a laymens book, not a technical journal, and when I went to dictionary.com, ‘projection’ is listed as a synonym for ‘prediction.’ You’re making a mountain out of a molehill here.”

    No, the difference between “predictions” and “projections” is that “predictions” can be falsified, and are therefore legitimate science, whereas “projections” (of the type made by the IPCC) cannot be falsified, and are therefore not legitimate science.

    That’s a mountain of difference, not a molehill.

    The most important question by far regarding climate change is, “What will climate change be like if there is no intervention by governments?” In other words, “How much will the world warm if governments do not intervene to reduce warming?”

    The IPCC has *never* answered this singularly important question. Look at any of the four IPCC Assessment Reports released to date (including the fourth Assessment Report, AR4, released in 2007). In NONE of them is there an estimate of the most probable warming (i.e. the 50 percent probability warming) in the 21st century. Likewise, there are no upper and lower probability estimates (e.g., the level of warming below which there is only a 5 percent probability of occurrence and the level of warming above which there is only a 5 percent probability of occurrence).

    This lack of a probabilistic estimate of warming in the 21st century in any of the IPCC’s four Assessment Reports is undoubtedly not due to mere incompetence. It’s unquestionably due to scientific fraud. It is the deliberate passing off of unfalsifiable (i.e., non-scientific) “projections” as legitimate science.

  22. 12
  23. dean Says:

    “The most important question by far regarding climate change is, “What will climate change be like if there is no intervention by governments?” In other words, “How much will the world warm if governments do not intervene to reduce warming?”

    The IPCC has *never* answered this singularly important question. Look at any of the four IPCC Assessment Reports released to date (including the fourth Assessment Report, AR4, released in 2007). ”

    This is simply not true. I just spent 10 minutes searching IPCC reports and found scenarios that attempt to predict a business-as-usual scenario, and that include error bars.

  24. 13
  25. Mark Bahner Says:

    “I just spent 10 minutes searching IPCC reports and found scenarios that attempt to predict a business-as-usual scenario, and that include error bars.”

    Did you see any estimates of the probability of occurrence for any of these scenarios? (Hint: No, you did not.)

  26. 14
  27. bverheggen Says:

    In engaging in public communication, scientists are damned if they use scientific lingo, and damned if they don’t. In the former case, their message will be lost on the lay audience, and in the latter case, their peers will call them upon their inaccuracies.

    I wrote about this catch 22 situation here: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/catch-22/

    Mann explains his choice of the word ‘prediction’ clearly having a lay audience in mind, and argues that using the term ‘predictions’ better conveys the key message to the intended audience than using the technically correct term ‘projections’. Perhaps it’s best to judge it by its key message, and assess whether that’s been bent out of shape in the process.

    A scientist using strict scientific language in engaging with the public may as well stick to scientific conferences instead, since it won’t lead to any increased understanding on the part of the public. Yet, a balance still has to be maintained, as e.g. Gavin points out in the same article: Framing should be used to better convey the key message, not to sell a particular product or viewpoint.

  28. 15
  29. Mark Bahner Says:

    “In the former case, their message will be lost on the lay audience, and in the latter case, their peers will call them upon their inaccuracies.”

    So if the book had been titled, “Dire Projections: Understanding Global Warming,” their “message” would be “lost”? In what sense would their “message be lost”?

    P.S. Regarding the post on your blog: If Al Gore “…clearly has a good understanding of climate science,” then he doesn’t care much about accuracy. His advice to his audience to look at the pre-industrial history of CO2 concentrations and temperatures, and then imagine what temperatures would result from current and projected future CO2 concentrations, was bunk. (As was his simulation of sea level changes that would occur over as much as centuries as though they would occur instantaneously in the near future.)

  30. 16
  31. The German Shepherd Dog Breed Breeding Information | German Shepherd Dog Says:

    [...] Purists Who Demand that Facts be “Correct” [...]

  32. 17
  33. Were the UFC contests of the 90’s Vale Tudo fights as oppose to MMA fights? | budoaikido.com Says:

    [...] Purists Who Demand that Facts be “Correct” [...]