4 ms·

"I was right to question" is certainly supported by "insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship" coming out later. I don't see any error based on

by inimino 10y ago

"I was right to question" is certainly supported by "insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship" coming out later. I don't see any error based on the information presented in the article.

triplesec 10y ago
That is a fair point. Although I've since read a couple of the articles the author complained about for groupthink, and they appear to have more credibility than him, however. For example: https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silvers-data-website-uses-deeply-misleading-data-top-climatologists-c6801fb06959#.kgdfuzfs6 https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silv... which is quoted in a Guardian article posted in another subthread lower down here.
- nkurz 10y ago
  What specifically about that article makes you doubt Pielke's credibility? I've been loosely following his work for about a decade, and my impression has been that he's trustworthy at least in the sense that he believes what he's saying, and is not intentionally trying to mislead. Without studying it, the Guardian article has the appearance of an example of the "intense media campaign to have me fired" that he refers to. That such a media campaign exists doesn't make his detractors wrong, but it makes me want to closely evaluate their claims for accuracy.
  - triplesec 10y ago
    Please explain to me how this Guardian article constitutes such. It's an article which goes into moderate non technical methodological detail on what Pielke did wrong and why, providing links and sources. Here's the link in this thread so you can study it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
    - nkurz 10y ago
      I wasn't trying to convince you that it was part of such a campaign. Rather I was wondering which particular details swayed you, as a presumably impartial observer, to believe one side of the story rather than the other. But since you ask, the main reason I feel like its part of a campaign is because the recently released emails have confirmed that there was indeed such a campaign. Before knowing that (which I think is a solid fact at this point) I probably would have thought that "intense media campaign" was too conspiratorial to be likely. Separately, while I don't know the Guardian author's history and experience, I feel like the vehemence of her language and the viciousness of the chosen quotes is greater than that normally shown in a science story. Also, from previous exposure to Mann and Trenberth, I (rightly or wrongly) start with the assumption that they are more concerned with political message than presenting an unbiased scientific overview. I liked that the first article you linked included a rebuttal from Pielke, and I found his links and counter-argument persuasive. But at this point I'm conscious of my bias toward his side of the story, and thus don't trust my assessment of this particular article. That's why I was asking you which parts you found convincing, so I could try to consider them specifically. --- The quoting of Judith Curry in the second article you linked is interesting. In 2007 she argued against Pielke's conclusions, but since then she has swung to be one of his strongest defenders. With regard to a parallel 2014 piece at Climate Progress, she wrote: RP Jr’s post at 538 has elicited what is probably the most reprehensible and contemptible smear job that I have ever seen of a scientist, at least from an organization that has any pretense of respectability As a result of sticking up for Pielke (as well as for stating her own beliefs) her own reputation has been similarly damaged: Well as recently as 5 years ago, I never thought I’d live to see the day when I am very grateful that I have tenure at a university, which provides my job with some protection against politically inconvenient scientific analyses. https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconvenient-statistics/ https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconven... (As a disclaimer, I'll say that while (like Pielke) I find Curry's writings to be accurate and scientifically trustworthy, many of the reader comments on her site strike me as underinformed right-wing politically biased trolling. If you can, try to judge her by her own writings, rather than by the comments of others.)
      - triplesec 10y ago

by inimino 10y ago

triplesec 10y ago

That is a fair point. Although I've since read a couple of the articles the author complained about for groupthink, and they appear to have more credibility than him, however. For example: https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silvers-data-website-uses-deeply-misleading-data-top-climatologists-c6801fb06959#.kgdfuzfs6 https://thinkprogress.org/first-climate-article-on-nate-silv... which is quoted in a Guardian article posted in another subthread lower down here.

nkurz 10y ago
What specifically about that article makes you doubt Pielke's credibility? I've been loosely following his work for about a decade, and my impression has been that he's trustworthy at least in the sense that he believes what he's saying, and is not intentionally trying to mislead. Without studying it, the Guardian article has the appearance of an example of the "intense media campaign to have me fired" that he refers to. That such a media campaign exists doesn't make his detractors wrong, but it makes me want to closely evaluate their claims for accuracy.
- triplesec 10y ago
  Please explain to me how this Guardian article constitutes such. It's an article which goes into moderate non technical methodological detail on what Pielke did wrong and why, providing links and sources. Here's the link in this thread so you can study it https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/25/fivethirtyeight-misrepresents-climate-change-research https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
  - nkurz 10y ago
    I wasn't trying to convince you that it was part of such a campaign. Rather I was wondering which particular details swayed you, as a presumably impartial observer, to believe one side of the story rather than the other. But since you ask, the main reason I feel like its part of a campaign is because the recently released emails have confirmed that there was indeed such a campaign. Before knowing that (which I think is a solid fact at this point) I probably would have thought that "intense media campaign" was too conspiratorial to be likely. Separately, while I don't know the Guardian author's history and experience, I feel like the vehemence of her language and the viciousness of the chosen quotes is greater than that normally shown in a science story. Also, from previous exposure to Mann and Trenberth, I (rightly or wrongly) start with the assumption that they are more concerned with political message than presenting an unbiased scientific overview. I liked that the first article you linked included a rebuttal from Pielke, and I found his links and counter-argument persuasive. But at this point I'm conscious of my bias toward his side of the story, and thus don't trust my assessment of this particular article. That's why I was asking you which parts you found convincing, so I could try to consider them specifically. --- The quoting of Judith Curry in the second article you linked is interesting. In 2007 she argued against Pielke's conclusions, but since then she has swung to be one of his strongest defenders. With regard to a parallel 2014 piece at Climate Progress, she wrote: RP Jr’s post at 538 has elicited what is probably the most reprehensible and contemptible smear job that I have ever seen of a scientist, at least from an organization that has any pretense of respectability As a result of sticking up for Pielke (as well as for stating her own beliefs) her own reputation has been similarly damaged: Well as recently as 5 years ago, I never thought I’d live to see the day when I am very grateful that I have tenure at a university, which provides my job with some protection against politically inconvenient scientific analyses. https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconvenient-statistics/ https://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconven... (As a disclaimer, I'll say that while (like Pielke) I find Curry's writings to be accurate and scientifically trustworthy, many of the reader comments on her site strike me as underinformed right-wing politically biased trolling. If you can, try to judge her by her own writings, rather than by the comments of others.)
    - triplesec 10y ago