You won’t find more blantantly obvious example of cherrypicked science than in today’s New York Times, which has an article on two new peer-reviewed studies on hurricanes and climate change. Given the debate over climate change and hurricanes the new studies are certainly newsworthy. However, it is what is left out of the Times story that makes the cherrypicking stand out undeniably.

The New York Times makes (and has made) no mention of two other just-published peer-reviewed studies (links here and here) providing somewhat different perspectives on the hurricane-climate issue and its policy significance (I am a co-author on one of the studies. It does not deny a global warming-hurricane link, but instead characterizes the literature in the context of an exchange with others with a different view). These studies, which are two among a larger family of research, are not necessarily “the other side” but they do add important context selectively ignored by the Times. In today’s article, for balance the New York Times interviewed NOAA’s Stanley Goldenberg, who is a respected scientist, but who hadn’t seen either of the papers referred to in the article or published a peer-reviewed study this month. Interviewing one of the authors of recent peer-reviewed work would have necessarily required referencing that work.

To the extent that the New York Times has a powerful role in shaping how policy options are framed and discussed, it does a disservice to the public and policymakers when it cherrypicks science. I suppose this is because they have decided to pick sides in the political debate over climate change and that political calculus shapes its editorial decisions.

After a bit more investigation, motivated by comments on my earlier post on Jim Hansen’s 1988 predictions (thanks all), it turns out that Jim Hansen has two sets of scenarios labeled A, B, and C. This is confusing to say the least. The conclusions of the earlier post remain unchanged, however, the analysis below may help to explain some things.

(more…)

Over at the GristMill blog, Dave Roberts continues our exchange on the notion of a “third way” perspective on climate change. Dave is typically thoughtful in his comments in which he is having none of the third way business, arguing:

(more…)

A lot of attention has been paid by both sides of the climate debate to a prediction made in 1988 before Congress by NASA scientist James Hansen. Today this forecast is the subject of an op-ed by Paul Krugman in the New York Times in which he accuses a prominent climate skeptic of scientific fraud. For some time I have been interested in various claims about Jim Hansen’s forecast because I am interested in prediction and its use/misuse in policy and politics. But what has been missing to date is a rigorous evaluation of Hansen’s forecast. Here is an initial effort to bring a bit more rigor to such an evaluation. The numbers below are not the last word, may contain errors, and are intended to open a discussion on this subject.

(more…)

Does Science really need to devote letter space to content-free testosterone-laden exchanges that involve no science or science policy?

Donald Kennedy’s Editorial “The new gag rules” (17 Feb., p. 917) was quite disturbing. I was offended, not by the unfounded allegations of conspiracy at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), but by the Editorial’s reckless disregard for the truth.

Dean Acosta, NASA

His letter is short on facts but rich in rhetoric, presumably to support his central point: that public affairs types need to collaborate with scientists because the latter can’t write well.

Donald Kennedy, Science

From this week’s Science:

(more…)

We have at times here at Prometheus taken issue with scientific organizations that take advocacy positions on certain issues. Today we’d like to highlight a situation where the American Association for the Advancement of Science is engaging in advocacy quite appropriate to its mission and expertise – from its press release:

(more…)

Joel Achenbach has a long and interesting article on climate skeptics in the Sunday Washington Post, you can read it here.

There is a long and interesting article in today’s Chronicle of Higher Education on the role of blogs in contemporary politics. Here is an excerpt:

(more…)

My only partially tongue-in-cheek post yesterday on the NSH Club generated many comments here and on Kevin’s NoSeNada blog. As well, my email box filled up with a bunch of comments. Here are a few perspectives on the various comments:

(more…)