The Pacific Institue’s Integrity of Science blog has moved! A long time in the making, we have now officially moved this blog over to ScienceBlogs.

Please bookmark and update your feeds to reflect the new site: http://scienceblogs.com/integrityofscience/

See you there!

The Management

What:
“Defining and Protecting the Integrity of Science: New Challenges for the 21st Century,” a panel discussion in conjunction with the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.

Leaders from various scientific sectors will be addressing political attacks and interference in science at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The discussion, “Defining and Protecting the Integrity of Science: New Challenges for the 21st Century,” will bring together leaders from the journal Science, academia, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Pacific Institute, and the AGU itself. These leaders will discuss their experiences with politically- and privately-motivated attacks, efforts to understand scientific integrity, and thoughts on the future relationship between science and policy making. More at www.integrityofscience.org.

Who:

Peter Gleick President, Pacific Institute (presiding); “The Integrity of Science: Identifying Logical Fallacies, Deceitful Tactics, and Abuse of the Public Trust”

Francesca Grifo Senior Scientist and Scientific Integrity Program Director, Union of Concerned Scientists (presiding); “Preventing Federal Government Abuse of Science”

Judith Curry Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, member of NOAA Climate Working Group; “Falling out of the Ivory Tower: a Case Study of Mixing Hurricane Science, Politics, and the Media”

Don Kennedy Editor-in-Chief, Science; “Science, Policy, and Peer Review”

Timothy Killeen President, AGU; Director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Where:
Room MCS 308
Moscone Convention Center South,
San Francisco, California
Directions

When:
8am-10am, Tuesday, December 12, 2006.

Interviews:
To schedule a one-on-one interview with any of the panelists, please contact Ian Hart at 510-251-1600 x106.

As a 700 Club host and founder of both the Christian Broadcasting Group and the Christian Coalition of America, Pat Robertson has made many divisive and headline grabbing statements. One he made last week may be dividing a different camp, however. (Hat tip: Real Reason)

I tell you stay in doors ladies and gentleman. Stay cool. Get fans or whatever. And the poor, they need emergency fans and ice to cool down — the number of people dead. I have not been one who believed in the global warming. But I tell you, they are making a convert out of me as these blistering summers. They have broken heat records in a number of cities already this year and broken all-time records and it is getting hotter and the ice caps are melting and there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air. We really need to address the burning of fossil fuels. If we are contributing to the destruction of the planet we need to do manage about it.

Robertson is not especially noted for his scientific prowess, and we join others cautioning against in uncritically conflating heat waves and climate change. But Robertson’s tone and candor is a quick and welcome change for his popular 700 Club. Just last month, Media Matters reported on the show’s uncritical airing of the views of climate skeptics.

On the July 10 edition of … the 700 Club, Media Research Center president L. Brent Bozell III misleadingly suggested that there is no scientific consensus on the existence of global warming. Asserting that the media “can’t decide” on the science because “[o]ne moment they’re declaring … there’s global warming. The next moment … there’s global cooling,” Bozell revived a favorite argument of some global warming skeptics that, in the 1970s, scientists were warning that the earth was cooling at an alarming rate. In fact, the magnitude of the consensus among scientists that global warming exists and that human activity is a contributing factor dwarfs the pool of scientists 30 years earlier who warned that the earth was cooling.

Robertson’s statements have also put him at odds with fellow evangelical leader Jerry Falwell, who has gone out of his way to instill doubt in the public’s understanding of climate science.

Writing for the National Journal, political writer Paul Starobin has produced an excellent, balanced article on scientific integrity called “Who Turned Out the Enlightenment?” Before you leave the office Friday (and before they make you pay to get it from the archives) print it out. Starobin traces the parallel lines of an ascending United States and an ascending scientific understanding, citing Franklin, Jefferson, Newton, and others. He gets to his thesis halfway through the essay:

“Shout popular democracy … get to decide what is and what is not credible science?”

He doesn’t answer the question, but he suggests what the answer might bring. Starobin goes to great lengths to show historical examples of both the left and the right trumping science with values. In doing so, he reveals the political thread connecting evolution, sociobiology, big tobacco, gender politics, tobacco, and climate change. The pattern produces a warning:

“In the long run, as the smoking-causes-cancer ‘debate’ proved, science cannot be cheated. And its punishment is merciless.”

While his argument that scientists skew Democrat because of a generally shared belief in government solving problems would seem to hold water, his portrait of the new “Lab-Coat Liberal” rests on too little evidence and not enough explanation. And while he is to be commended for pointing out attacks on science from both political extremes, he fails to give weight to their efforts. He may be able to balance attacks on sociobiology with attacks on evolution philosophically, but in political history they hold vastly different weights. However, his interest lies with science and political science, not with partisanship.

A fascinating, if somewhat frightening, societal experiment is under way. The question is whether democracy naturally advances science, or whether modern progress in science actually has less to do with heralded forms of government than with the fruit born of a special moment in historical time, the modern European Enlightenment, from which America, courtesy of the Founders, greatly benefited.

We think it’s a bit more frightening than fascinating, given that we’re not in the control group. But bravo to Starobin for this thought-provoking article.

E&E TV has had a couple interesting interviews of late discussing the tricky balance between balanced journalism and scientific integrity. Today they interviewed Andrew Revkin, New York Times environment writer, children’s book author, and recent target of Senator Inhofe’s swift-boating. They touched on the subject of scientific integrity a few times. Toward the end of the interview, they directly address Inhofe’s attack.

Darren Samuelsohn: Your book has caught the attention of Senator Jim Inhofe’s staff, the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. It was listed among several journalism outlets, I guess you could call them, Tom Brokaw’s Discovery Channel documentary and the Associated Press’s coverage of Al Gore’s movie. Saying that there’s questions about objectivity in the press and that there’s a love fest in the media about global warming. How do you respond to Senator Inhofe questioning your objectivity?

Andrew Revkin: Well, the book is very much science driven. It lets the scientists speak and show what it’s all about. It’s, by far, the least inflammatory book out there on this issue and there’s no spin, it’s a no-spin zone. I don’t believe in spin. In fact, I’ve worked hard to kind of cut that away, parse that away and see what we really know and don’t know and need to know. And the book really lays that out. It’s a portrait of the once and future Arctic.

Darren Samuelsohn: Senator Inhofe is one of the most outspoken critics of the science, a skeptic or denier, what have you. How do you deal with skeptics when you’re doing your reporting? Do they get any say whatsoever in your stories?

Andrew Revkin: Yeah, well it depends on the story. If I’m writing about science I talk to scientists who are publishing peer-reviewed work in the field I’m writing about. If it’s about what’s happening with Greenland’s ice, I talk to people who understand the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets in that part of the world. And that if I’m talking about policy questions in a story, what do we do about it? How dangerous is climate change? How much is too much? Then I reach farther out, and I would be more apt to quote someone from, let’s say, World Wildlife Fund and someone from the Cato Institute or one of the groups that shapes the industry position. Because they are, that’s where that discourse broadens. The science stories, if I’m writing about an assessment of a new research project, then I talk to scientists alone.

In word and deed, Revkin is both knowledgeable and balanced. He does not deserve to have his credibility attacked for a book, a children’s book no less, that his attackers haven’t even read. You can watch the full interview here (subscription required).

A couple days ago they interviewed Jim Detjen, professor and director of the Knight Center for Environmental Journalism at Michigan State University. Detjen discussed the state of environmental journalism, and near the end of the interview discusses the tricky balance between balanced coverage and scientific consensus.

You can view the program here (subscription required). Below is an excerpt from the transcript:

Darren Samuelsohn: How do you teach students in terms of initially, like global warming, where there are many points of view? What do you teach them in terms of the skeptic’s point of view? Do they belong in their coverage?

Jim Detjen: I think I try to teach the students that it’s important to figure out where the consensus of knowledge is on an issue. And so, like in the area of climate change and global warming, the overwhelming, the majority of science, scientists, are in very similar camps. I mean I think it’s important to tell your readers and viewers that that’s the case. I think you can tell if there’s a knowledgeable minority. You can express that point of view. I think sometimes there are people that are throwing up smoke screens and I think journalists need to be authoritative. They need to be knowledgeable enough and authoritative enough so that they can say, “This is what science is telling us.”

Darren Samuelsohn: Vice President Gore, in his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth,” he actually criticizes the press for quoting skeptics too much in terms of how much majority or consensus opinion there is compared with the coverage. Is this really a no-win situation for reporters, where they’re going to be criticized from the left and from the right?

Jim Detjen: I mean it’s very difficult. I guess I like to say that if you’re a journalist, criticism comes with the territory. And if you’re going to be a journalist, you know, you’re going to be criticized and there will be some very strong attacks you will face. I think, as a journalist, the best thing to do is try to become as knowledgeable as you can, try to look at the best science as you can, try to report it as fairly as you can and do the best you can. And try not to be intimidated, because I think there are powerful special interests that are, in fact, trying to intimidate journalists from covering one story or the other or shaping the way you cover a story. And I mean this goes back for, in all beats. I mean I worked at the Philadelphia Inquirer for many years and we had our Middle East correspondents. You name it, on any given day there were people from the Palestinians protesting or the Israelis protesting in front of the building. And we used to think, well gee, he’s probably doing a good job because he’s getting a lot of people angry and upset.

Darren Samuelsohn: As long as you can get both sides angry.

Jim Detjen: Well, I think you try to be fair, OK? And you realize that there’s going to be special interests that are mobilized, who will try to shape your coverage. My hope is that you have strong enough editors and strong enough publishers who will let the journalists do their jobs and do it well if they have good reporters. And not be intimidated by people who are trying to shape the coverage.

It’s fairly obvious that as climate skeptics lose both the science and the public opinion, they are pushing to discredit those who challenge their world views. While some do it respectfully, others are unscrupulous in their personal and professional attacks.

Speculation that the Senate is “swift-boating” scientist James Hansen suddenly seems less speculative (hat-tip: SciAm). Marc Morano, new communications director for Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-Okla.), has a colorful history. Greenwire reported recently:

Morano, who worked as a producer in the mid-90s for radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, was also among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign scrutinizing Kerry’s Vietnam War record. And earlier this year, Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), a leading critic of Bush’s Iraq policy.

Morano penned the recent attack on Tom Brokaw and three scientists including Hansen. Greenwire is reporting that Morano also recently attacked the credibility of New York Times environmental reporter and children’s book author Andy Revkin. Morano listed Revkin “among journalists who have tied their personal and professional reputations to the catastrophic effects of global warming.”

At issue: Revkin’s new children’s book, “The North Pole Was Here.” From Friday’s Greenwire (subscription required):

“The title alone implies climate alarmism,” said Morano, who added that he has not read Revkin’s book. […]

“I doubt there’s another current account of Arctic climate change out there as true to the science and as spin-free and scare-free as ‘The North Pole Was Here,’” Revkin said. “It is, in every way, an extension of the journalism I’ve been doing on climate for 20 years, journalism that has been consistently lauded by people on all sides of the climate debate for its accuracy and fairness.”

Morano insisted in an interview today he was not criticizing all aspects of Revkin’s reporting, and he commended the journalist for challenging Time magazine over a recent cover story on global warming headlined “Be Afraid…Be Very Afraid.”

But Morano said he did have questions about how the New York Times should present Revkin’s future articles on climate change. From time to time, Morano said the newspaper should include a disclaimer explaining Revkin has published a book on the subject.

When searching for an analogy to this climate, we always come back to Jaws. If Senator Inhofe was the mayor of Amity Island, and Morano was his spokesman, we fear that Chief Brody would be stripped of his dignity and scientist Matt Hooper would be on the next boat for the mainland. As body parts and shark fins became an increasingly regular sight at the beach, Mayor Inhofe would be urging calm among the rash of “boating accidents.”

Unfortunately, this drama is taking place outside of the cineplex. The swift-boating of scientists, science, and journalists is no accident, and it has no place in public or scientific debate.

The Society of Environmental Journalists has posted an interesting discussion on the difference in mainstream coverage of climate change in Europe and the United States (hat tip: RealClimate). The main difference: balanced journalism in Europe (and elsewhere) doesn’t mean giving space to crackpots. Quoting Fiona Harvey, environmental correspondent for the UK’s Financial Times:

… it’s quite rare to get pieces questioning the science of global warming. The science is so overwhelming. So these fringe voices who still manage to get themselves heard in the U.S. press are not quoted in the mainstream stories in Europe. You will see them occasionally, but usually they just write angry letters saying, “You’re all wrong.”

They are regarded here as what they are: fringe voices without a great deal of substantial scientific backing.

Read the full discussion here.

Last week we were one of the first blogs to pick up on the Senate’s “fatwa on Brokaw.” The Senators’ press release was striking in its paranoia, conjecture, and lack of science as it made a scientific attack on a then yet-unaired Discovery Channel special (yes, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works is attacking the network that brings you Shark Week and American Chopper).

In attacking the integrity of former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, the Senate also sought to diminish the integrity of noted climate expert James Hansen. Throwing several mud pies to see if one might hit, they tossed this into the debate:

Hansen also conceded in a 2003 issue of Natural Science (http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html ) that the use of “extreme scenarios” to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public’s attention to the issue — a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Enter into the fray Scientific American. In yesterday’s blog entry “Half-Baked Smears against Climatologists,” John Rennie absolutely shreds this attack, showing both a lack of fact-checking and honesty. He then draws parallels to attacks on climatologist Stephen Schneider, who skeptics have smeared with an out-of-context quote for nearly two decades.

The Senate Committee is trying to suggest scientists play by the rules of politicians (God help us were that the case). These elected officials would like the public to believe that a $250,000 gift from an ethically-challenged lobbyist is the same as a $250,000 grant from a foundation headed by a politician’s wife. It’s simply not the case, but as Rennie points out, they’ll bend the truth over backwards to fit their world view.

We’ll close on a related quote from Hansen that Rennie highlighted in his post.

Science and politics don’t mix. I believe that active researchers should offer objective assessment of the science problem and leave it to others to extract policy implications. The complication is that the scenarios for climate forcings and climate change are a function of people’s actions. Unless we make clear the relation between those actions and climate change, policy makers will not have the information they need.

Chris Mooney has a great piece in this month’s Seed Magazine (hat-tip to UCS). “As science goes, so goes the nation: How the White House misunderestimated the height, width, breadth and depth of a crucial cultural meme” nicely teases out the similarities in the White House’s handling of James Hansen and NASA, Hurricane Katrina, and the war in Iraq.

The president, for whatever reason, hasn’t shown that he respects what’s going on in what one of his aides so hilariously described as the “reality-based community.” The “Bush is anti science” meme carries political weight because it underscores why so many Americans (including previous supporters) are becoming increasingly disenchanted with Bush: They don’t think he’s fit to lead, and they don’t believe many of his appointees are competent administrators of various branches of the government, virtually all of which require some form of scientific or other expertise. Bush’s recently-exposed decision to meet with television producer and novelist Michael Crichton to discuss global warming—rather than heeding the advice of the National Academy of Sciences on this subject—epitomizes the president’s disregard for the critical role of legitimate expertise in decision-making, whether it’s about global warming, educational policy or nation-building.

Ouch. Stephen Colbert’s roast wasn’t nearly as biting. Share this article with your friends, and enemies.

Andrew Wheeler, staff director of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (chaired by Senator James “greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people” Inhofe) appeared on E&ETV’s OnPoint today to discuss climate change. He spend much of the interview chewing marbles, so we’re grateful that OnPoint provided a transcript (subscription required). Wheeler touched on most of the usual foot-dragging arguments during the 13 minute interview. There are a number of points we’d like to contest, but for the sake of brevity, we’ll highlight just one.

… what [Senator Inhofe] is concerned about is whether or not man-made contributions are contributing to the climate changing and what those contributions might be. A number of the scientists who’ve looked at the models and looked at what the level of CO2 releases are have stated that if you zeroed out CO2 releases it’s not going to do very much as far as altering the predictions based on the modeling of what the temperature might be in 50 or 100 years.

This statement falls squarely onto the climate science foot dragging timeline. First they denied the climate was changing. Then they denied that climate change is man-made. Now Inhofe and Co. are prepping the next stage: acknowledge it’s happening, even acknowledge it’s man-made problem, but deny that there is anything we can do about it. It’s a convenient just-keep-attacking-the-science strategy, as long as you can wait the populace out. We’d like to offer this quote from a 2004 Science essay as a rebuttal:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

If that future comes, and Senator Inhofe seems determined in his course, our economic rigidity and corporate kowtowing will reflect poorly on the “Me” generation.