False Equivalency And Specious Analyses Offered up as “Balance” on Highly Influential NY Times Climate Change blog

A recent climate change coverage post concluded:

How repeated comments on the estimable NY Times DotEarth blog, to the constant effect that there is no evidence or support for the consensus of most scientists, continue to get posted and not sufficiently undermined by other commenters and in particular the blog itself, is hard to fathom. Unless — as I have suggested on it back when I inefficiently if not foolishly ventured forth some comments myself — this leading science blog is supposed to serve more as a reflection of the ignorance and disinformation of our national debate, rather than a check and attempt to improve upon it.

ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm suggests a rather harsh but on point reason why this might be the case, in a piece scathingly entitled “Revkin’s DotEarth hypes disinformation posted on an anti-science website”:

One of the reasons for the collapse [in rigorous scientific media coverage] is the media’s refusal to draw a distinction between what scientists say based on actual observations and analysis in the peer-reviewed literature and what anti-science disinformers say based on their total lack of knowledge of the science and general willingness to misrepresent the facts or make stuff up.

The only area I might tend to disagree with Romm on — and it’s minor to his point above —  is the conscious willingness to make stuff up and misrepresent. Sure it’s done a lot, but often I think it is believed by those doing so (or at least the points that it tends to support are believed); it is frequently the way an ideological driven analysis and the human minds works. If  belief is fervently held and/or there are particularly strong (believed) reasons for it, arguments will be concocted that reinforce (and sell) one’s predetermined belief. (Here’s an example of this just posted in comments on Romm’s blog itself.) We see this in spades on the climate change issue — and in some ways, it almost defines it. Although if it were that obvious, then obviously, we wouldn’t be having the national (and even to some degree international) misinformed discussion on the issue that by and large, we are.

Romm’s piece was in reference to this Dot Earth column.  I had written a decent enough comment to that same Dot Earth piece, to which Revkin both responded (see bottom),  and also quoted from at length in a post the next day.  (Which nevertheless wouldn’t update to reflect more than my last name only, for reasons he would not state, or, apparently, change.)

But to that same initial post that Romm critiques, Revkin also printed a somewhat inane email from ideologue and meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr.; another, much worse comment from some random blogger (who mislead or was flat out wrong with respect to almost every substantive point therein); and as Romm  harshly but correctly points out, updated the piece with an analysis by Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University — who in a highly convoluted but poetically written piece of tripe compares “the science is settled” assertion with the gravity and apparent lack of full candor on the “Iraq has WMD’s” assertion. (Indicating, in the process, that he either knows little about either (see here, or the second half of here), or his fervent ideology on this issue has gotten in the way. Not to mention the fact that the Ravetz letter appeared on one of the most powerful disinformation sites out there.)

The WMD certainty or near certainty belief was widely held. But not that widely held. And by mid-March of 2003 when we commenced military action, outside of this country and a few others, it was not a belief that was widely held by those at all remotely involved in the process.  It had been mainly believed in the absence of actual data, based upon Iraq’s history and pattern of non cooperation. Unlike climate change, it did not require looking into a crystal ball regarding long term future scientific effects in what amounts to a long term and wild experiment upon the entire earth’s climate, with no “sister” or control earth’s by which to assess differences in hindsight. It required confirmation of something that either did or did not exist at the time.

After weapons inspectors went back into Iraq on November 27, 2002 and conducted viable weapons inspections in Iraq for the first time in numerous years (up until they were ordered out on the eve of our military action commencement on March 19, 2003),  they found no substantial evidence to support what every nearly major intelligence report emphasized was a presumption rendered in the absence of verified data from Iraq, and were universally saying to “wait.”

Ravetz might be very scholarly.  But to compare that to a widespread consensus opinion that — by the actions of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to the point where atmospheric levels of said gases, in total global warming potential equivalent GWPe (that is, taking into account the relevant long lived gases as noted above, and their various heat trapping potential reduced to a common denominator) are now approaching heat levels not seen in many millions of years — we are effecting future climate, is asinine.

Then of course there is this comparison, which makes the equivalency of Ravetz’ “the science is settled,” and “Iraq had WMDs” assertions even more asinine;  We have to get off of fossil fuels anyway.  They are finite. Their continued reliance harms national security and sends hundreds of billions each year overseas to often unfriendly regimes for a natural commodity which (in the case of oil) we simply don’t have nearly enough of on our own; they are highly polluting otherwise; and in the case of coal even lead to often excessive ecosystem damage in their acquisition, and in usage to the bio accumulation of toxins, such as mercury, in our food supply.

Even more importantly, as far as the climate goes, we can’t ever know exactly how much we will effect it until well after the fact (not to mention sufficiently after the fact to have given us enough time to accommodate for the large multi decade plus lag between cause and effect, and to iron out the enormous inherent variability of climate itself on top of that); but it is an enormous risk that will likely affect our children and their children far more than us, and one that an overwhelming number of actual climate and geophysical scientists who have studied the issue are in agreement, for basic, sensible reasons, is quite high.  The entire question is one of risk assessment, not of certainty of ‘X’ or “Y”result.

Iraq was  a monumental unilateral military engagement (now, seven years later, still ongoing) based not upon a risk assessment that Iraq had WMDs (for even if they did, plenty of nation’s do, it is not necessarily a reason for pre-emptive military action);  but upon “the fact” that Iraq did have them, and that therefore pre-emptive aggressive military action was justified. The risk assessment itself was based upon the assertion of this fact.

There is nothing remotely corollary to the climate change issue, nor, by the very nature of it, can there be. The only “proof” or evidence that has come in has tended to bolster the perception of the underlying climate change problem — in may ways, rather powerfully and extremely coincidentally. Critics of this often however confuse this so called “proof” or (as better terminology), evidence, with the problem itself, when it is most decidedly not the problem, but (likely) merely some very early, and highly trailing, evidence of it.  It is no surprise that if Watt’s Up is going to find a professor from a seemingly eminent Institution somewhere (among the tens of thousands of professors from eminent Institutions), he would find one who does not get this, among other things.

As for the “climategate” scandal which Ravetz also makes such a WMD type fuss over, see the summary of my email to Revkin below, highlighted in bold: As noted therein:

How much attention have the critic providers of alternative work to Michael Mann’s [and Phil Jones']  work received? To a tee, they all manipulated data more than Mann [or Jones] did.

But one doesn’t hear about how their data compilations comprise the “science scandal of the decade.”  Yet most if not all of the data compilations put together by critics targeting the methodology and even integrity of Jones or Mann were repeatedly shown to have been more manipulated, if anything.  Yet nothing remotely approaching the same level of widespread public  scrutiny and condemnation has ever been applied.

The reason for this? There are very few people who decided it would be a good thing if the future climate was being royally screwed up; but countless — including many who have (or wrongly believe they or we have) strongly vested interests — who have predetermined that it would be a good thing if we are not, and have sought diligently to arrive at the end result conclusion, where belief is driving the analysis rather than vice versa.

Thus Mann and Jones’s work has been pilloried as a sort of  scandal of the decade. (Despite the fact that data supporting Mann’s hockey stick is still stronger than data not supporting it, and the fact that if the earth has shifted even more in the past than we think, thus rendering Mann’s “hockey stick” less oblique than as presented, this only means the climate is even more sensitive to or apt to ultimately, easily change, not less.)  Whereas creative critiques “proving” otherwise or any number of other fallacious or misinformed claims, has not nearly been so illuminated.  Indeed, media sources, often scurrying to provide the false patina of “balance” but providing anything but, have often promoted these as some sort of ’side’ to a ‘debate,’ and ideological interests have zealously pushed this point further.  (Revkin himself even recently and quite strongly played into this general trend of seeking false balance rather than simply the best and most relevant scientific inquiries of all types — and why I think he was well off base to do so.)

The disinformation site Watts Up With That, where Ravetz’ inanely contorted piece appears — the same one that Revkin promoted along with the Watts Up site itself  – engages in more misrepresentation on the underlying issue than Mann or Jones ever did – and does so on a fairly ongoing basis.)

(In reading Ravetz’ highly contorted but well presented piece, however, I can’t help but think that if pro climate change advocates assessed this in broader language, and stopped falling prey to the desire to overemphasize trailing temperature data — which is not the basis for the problem — at least some understanding would be improved.)

As Romm puts it:

The reason I am writing this post, however, is not any of the above.  It’s the staggering update Revkin has:

[UPDATE, 8 p.m.: In an interesting guest post on WattsUpWithThat, Jerome Ravetz, a longtime student of the intersection of science and society, explores the panel's travails and related issues.]

No, no, a thousand times no.

In general, you can assume that if Watts has reprinted a piece, it is filled with anti-scientific disinformation.  It’s kind of like the laws of thermodynamics.  If someone tells you they have a perpetual motion machine, you don’t actually have to look at the design closely to know that, in fact, they don’t.

Now the least Revkin could do is quickly skim this nonsensical piece to see if, yes, it is in fact a perpetual disinformation machine, like all of Watts’ other posts.  It’s just pure anti-scientific garbage masquerading as … well, it’s masquerading as mostly anti-scientific garbage.

A decent enough example of the ideologically driven Watts Up With That disinformation site is found here, noting:

The idea that weather does not define climate was examined here.  But A. Watts’ “Watts Up With That?” webblog elected to simply re post verbatim excerpts — note that the site often simply reposts large chunks or an entire article verbatim without much or any additional commentary, insight or analysis — from an original snowfall article,with the simple, snarky introduction:

More from the “weather is not climate department.”

Read through the 154 comments to the snowfall article to see if this kind of subtle (and very often not so subtle)‘arguing’ doesn’t have a profound effect on shaping and misinforming the discussion. Unfortunately, as a perusal of the comments on the site at any point in time aptly illustrate, it does.  (Here’s an interesting related video, which Watts improperly had YouTube take down, and which was then put back up: see from minutes 3:56 on — as the earlier part is peripheral, and it is true, someone does have to defend smokers.)

Watt’s article completely neglected to mention that this unprecedented summer snowfall in Australia also happened during one of the hottest, and driest, Australian summers on record, following an even hotter summer, and during the continuance of Australia’s worst long term drought on record (which also included its worst short term drought on record).

The link to the very popular but designedly anti climate science site Watt’s Up, and Ravetz’ misunderstanding of the state of science and what “settled” means and does not mean, along with his misunderstanding of the scientific basis for, and the fact of, the overwhelming relevant scientist consensus that we are now in the process of affecting future climate (see endnotes here for support), not surprisingly, was also provided by another near constant misinforming and/or misinformed commenter on Revkin’s blog; to whom Revkin directly responded:

I added a link to it earlier tonight…. Thanks for posting here. Well worth reading.

No, Andy, it wasn’t.

To the same post yet again, Revkin also highlighted a comment by yet another clearly driven ideologue — who for some perhaps not so coincidental reasons seem to get attracted to Revkin’s Dot Earth blog like moths to light. (It’’s a venerable NY Times blog and considered influential, hence a good place to go to try and influence public opinion, and Revkin puts up with, and occasionally even promotes, a good deal of misrepresentation, and worse.)

This commenter was responding to an IPCC statement to the effect that “[the data] show that recent warming is inconsistent with internal climate variability and other external influences alone,” and wrote:

This statement is simply absurd! How can these people sit there and make statements about what is and what is not consistent with internal climate variability when they have no idea what all of the elements of climate variability are? Ask them to explain what elements of climate variability are responsible for overriding the effects of CO2 for the most recent twelve years, and they have absolutely no clue.

Number one, 12 years are not that consequential climate wise — the longer term trend of statistically significant warming over the past 150 years, is– depending upon what happens within those twelve years. (Proving the negative of a causal effect on an inherently variable and long term system always takes a certain amount of accumulated data,proving the opposite, or the high likelihood of the opposite, depending upon the actual data itself, also takes a lot of data, but to varying degrees less depending upon the extremity of the data itself.)

Number two, whether or not some aspects of the IPCC’s generalized language and explanations could have been better or not, this commenter badly confuses the inability to precisely map climate with both precision and short term precision, with any ability whatsoever to ascertain broad parameters of climatic effect.

And, number three, those same 12 years which this commenter asserts negated any impact of CO2 (which impact, again, is far more significant long term, and with a large time lag to boot, anyway) have witnessed ten of the eleven warmest years on record. Just another tiny little oversight.  But to him, because we can’t do the near impossible and model it down to all of the huge variability, it is then “absurd” that we can know anything at all.

It’s a scientifically specious, or just extremely misinformed comment.  Yet Revkin highlighted it.

But he’s highlighted worse.

And linked to worse pieces, as Romm points out.

As I wrote to Revkin recently, in part explaining my decision to not waste time posting comments on that blog unless and until standards for accountability and for true, dispassionate, science objectivity rather than false balance equilibrating are improved, essentially:

You [recently gave] a speech at Warren College about changing mindsets, in a world that is different than the one that exists out here. And the reason the world is different is due to facilitating and playing into the misrepresentation and misleading and ideological driven zealotry where any workable and self believable and thus highly sellable manipulation is arrived at or contrived in order to fit the “fact” into a pre arranged belief…

By allowing [this] to go unchecked, by providing the forum for it, by sometimes even highlighting for “thoughtfulness and interesting-ness” what is misleading, manipulated (unintentionally or otherwise), misrepresented, or the comments of those who engage in this, is promoting it. It is promoting, and not checking or improving upon, the basis of our misinformed collective understanding. Not the “understanding” of journalists, or scientists, or only those who have studied the issue intensely, but of all of us, that which shapes our world and our collective response through sensible policies (or not) of what is whether we like it or not, a decidedly collective challenge.

…How much attention have the critic providers of alternative work to Michael Mann’s [and Phil Jones, who together comprise "climategate" as referred to above] work received? To a tee, they all manipulated data more than Mann [or Jones] did. Yet is this nearly as frequently pointed out (or even one tenth as big a deal made about it), do the ideologues call these people criminals and worse, like they do Mann and Jones? Of course not. They call them heroes. I don’t know if you fully get what is driving what can’t even fairly be called a double standards — because double standards pale in comparison — and how putting up with it only perpetuates and furthers the problem; in which case, that is, facilitating or putting up with it, then, really, there is no point in working on the issue.

I imagine that was my ultimate point to Revkin. If it — an estimable blog at the (still somewhat?) august NY Times, or any such ideal journalistic endeavor– is going to try to seek a “common ground” based upon the misinformation perpetuating and entrenching pretense of false equivalency, and vastly differing standards of scientific and logical rigor, then there is no point in pursuing it or engaging in it in the first place. It becomes more a part of the problem, then of the solution.

Other Links to this Post

1. Science Disinformation Sites Do Little But Confuse And Undermine Understanding of Climate Change | ScienceClimateAndEnergy.com — April 12, 2010 @

2. Essays-Letters-Articles » New York Times Searches Far and Wide for the Most Qualified Experts — April 15, 2010 @

3. NewsAffair.org » Blog Archive » More Evidence that the NY Times Does Not Understand the Science of Climate Change — August 8, 2010 @