Comments on: N.Y. Times makes a mess of politics and science right on page 1

By: Leaving Our Geological Mark | The Loom | Discover Magazine

Leaving Our Geological Mark | The Loom | Discover Magazine — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:58:11 +0000

[...] warming climate may earn carbon dioxide all the headlines (including ones about senators who can’t tell the difference between a couple blizzards and a 130-year climate recor…), but the gas is having another effect that’s less familiar but no less devastating. Some of [...]

By: Демидов

Демидов — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:02:06 +0000

Интересная статья, автору респект!

By: Consistency « Cruel Mistress

Consistency « Cruel Mistress — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:22:16 +0000

[...] seems to be everywhere. Here’s another example of it, and Yulsman, as usual, is on the case. The NY Times also adds a nice little bulletin board of bullshit — otherwise known as the [...]

By: Art Hackett

Art Hackett — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:26:02 +0000

The problem is scientific theories only explain some things, though they try to explain that which is not understood. Political theories explain everything, including that which is not understood.

By: Christy George

Christy George — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:20:51 +0000

This idiocy will end when the Winter Olympics start with no snow.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:32:14 +0000

Joe was playing to the potential new audience. His post mentioned everythinbg that was wrong with the piece while avoiding telling NYT readers it was crap. But I also agree with him that anyone reading to the end of the story did end up with a reasonable characterization of the science. Of course, so many will fail to read to the end.

Also, I think you’re wrong about c+t being the be all and end all for Joe. Making progress on the problem is what’s important, and c+t happens to be what’s on the table just now. If that bill fails, he’ll move on to the next most likely option.

By: Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:37:50 +0000

hro001: Thank you for taking the time to comment here. Let me respond, briefly:

The evidence for humankind’s influence on the climate is not at all limited to climate modeling, as you imply. (And btw, Roger Pielke, Jr. would no doubt agree with me on this.) It is built on many streams of evidence, some going back more than 100 years. Among them: physics, atmospheric physics, oceanography, paleoclimatology, biogeochemistry, meteorology, geology, climatology, and yes, simulations of the climate system. These multiple streams of evidence paint a consistent picture of an anthropogenic influence on climate.

Yes, there are many unanswered questions. But you seem to be asking for absolute, yes or no, answers. You’ll never get them. There can be no facts about the future. So we have to go on probabilities and estimations of risk. And keep in mind the definition of risk:

Risk = probability X consequences

Even if the probability of a particular event (such as a nasty climate surprise) is relatively low, if the consequences are high so is the risk. You can decide, based on your own values, how to respond to that risk. But let’s not confuse science with values.

Lastly, science reporters like myself simply have not failed to explore the issues. We will just not be swayed by what one or another set of political partisans have to say.

By: hro001

hro001 — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:12:18 +0000

“Consequently, is it actually legitimate to pin this storm, even with the words “consistent with,” on a long term process? Or in order to say anything meaningful, do we have to see whether the frequency and intensity of such blizzards increases over a period of a couple of decades?

The “weather is not climate” argument is somewhat of a red herring that obscures the real issue. As Dr. Pielke noted (on the page to which you linked):

“What happens in the weather this week or next tells us absolutely nothing about the role of humans in influencing the climate system.”

The key issue is “the role of humans in influencing the climate system”. Until such time as there is any actual empirical evidence (as opposed to highly questionable Computer Model Generated evidence) that human generated C02 is the “primary” influence on the climate system, at this point, everything else is but a diversion.

To the extent that many “science” reporters have failed to explore this aspect of climate change, while they may (or may not) have “played poodle to their sources”, then there is some question in my mind as to whether or not they have conducted due diligence on this rather crucial part of the issue.

By: Hillary

Hillary — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 22:30:23 +0000

I couldn’t agree more, Tom. I was shocked that the NYT seemed to be reverting to the old trope of pitting idealogues against one another to create the appearance of debate where there is none. I mean, the first sentence of the piece refers to “the two sides in the climate change debate.” As far as I can tell, those sides are scientists vs imbeciles. I hope this isn’t a sign of things to come in the post-Revkin era.