Integrity of Science

That's All, Folks

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 14:41:24 -0800

This is the last post for the Pacific Institute's Integrity of Science blog. We've really enjoyed our time at ScienceBlogs and think this is a great community. To quote a walrus, "You're such a lovely audience, we'd like to take you home with us, we'd love to take you home."

At this time, the Pacific Institute is going to be refocusing its blogging effort to go beyond the work of our Science Integrity program and incorporate all the work we do: from securing safe drinking water in Africa to cleaning up diesel truck traffic in Oakland to making sure that international corporate social responsibility standards are meaningful. Look for a mid-fall release of the new Pacific Institute blog at www.pacinst.org.

We will continue to work to defend science from political and corporate assaults. You can keep abreast of our work on this issue at www.integrityofscience.org.

To keep abreast of all of the Pacific Institute's work, I encourage you to sign up for our e-mail newsletter.

Much thanks to Katherine and everyone at ScienceBlogs and Seed Media for giving us the opportunity to blog here.

Happy trails,

Ian Hart
Editor, Integrity of Science blog

Read the comments on this post...

Columnist Calls for "Honest Disagreement," Holds Straight Face

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:29:56 -0800

In her Aug. 12 column, "Paralyzing fog of certainty on climate" Debra Saunders asserts many things, including that money flows to climate scientists as well as climate skeptics. No argument there. However, she neglects to distinguish between the quality of research this money funds, asking, "Why not posit that there is such a thing as honest disagreement on the science?" The problem is, much of the disagreement is dishonest, hiding under a veil of science.

Multinational fossil fuel corporations have billions of dollars riding on U.S. inaction on climate change. These corporations are behind a number of analyses that do not hold up to peer review: not because of inherent biases of the peer reviewers, but because the science is junk.

In Saunders's world, however, there is no such thing as junk science. Just honest disagreement.

Defending the integrity of sound science from the attack of propaganda is not a "muzzling of dissent." Rather, it is the mechanism through which this fog of uncertainty will clear, and science will triumph over ideology.

Read the comments on this post...

One more thing about yesterday's USA Today article

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 07:24:55 -0800

Something else is bothering me about yesterday's USA Today article Science vs. politics gets down and dirty. It's the implication that scientists are speaking out because of political bent.

Science policy professor Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State University in Tempe says: "I think the opportunity to use science as a political tool against Bush has been irresistible -- but it is very dangerous for science, and for politics. You can expect to see similar accusations of the political use of science in the next regime." [...] And because polls show that scientists tend to be Democrats, Sarewitz says, their complaints should be viewed cautiously.

First off, assuming our next president is a Democrat, Sarewitz's observations would seem to contradict themselves. Aside from that, consider how Vergano closes the piece:

"The danger comes when (science) gets to be seen as simply politics by other means," (Harvard science historian Steven) Shapin says. "Why trust it then?"

Read the comments on this post...

USA Today conflates science manipulation, political considerations

Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:23:07 -0800

This morning, hotel guests across the country this morning woke up to a chronicle of the divide between science and poltics in USA Today's "Science vs. politics gets down and dirty." There's no need to hit the complimentary continental breakfast for a second cup of coffee when your morning news starts

The relationship (between the Bush administration and the nation's scientific community) hit a new low last month when Richard Carmona, surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, lashed out at his former colleagues in testimony before a House committee.

Normally, I'd think the nation's most circulated paper covering attacks on science integrity is a good thing. Unfortunately, throughout the article author Dan Vergano consistently confuses political interference and political considerations.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

'Truth' wins UCS 'Science Idol' Contest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:18:45 -0800

Jesse Springer of Eugene, Oregon is the new Union of Concerned Scientists Science Idol His entry was our pick as well:

Established last year, UCS's "Science Idol" is an annual editorial cartoon contest on the theme of science integrity. Last year's winning cartoon is here.
Check out all of this year's finalists.

Read the comments on this post...

Houston Chronicle on Political Manipulation of Science

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:53:36 -0800

In a nutshell:

"This administration's political appointees might be unique in their contempt for government scientists and the empiric process that shapes their work."

Read "Frog by frog." Hat-tip to Michael Halpern

Read the comments on this post...

Surgeon General: Attacking the Messenger

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 07:00:56 -0800

A number of voices have weighed in following this months revelation that Surgeon General Richard Cormona had been subject to widespread political restrictions from the White House during his 2002-2006 tenure. Many have held up the story as another example of politics and bias getting in the way of reality-based problem solving -- the Kaiser Family Foundation has even collected some of the editorials, and provides summaries.

Of course, the Washington Machine being what it is, we now have the inevitable backlash. Accordingly, Fox News is attacking the messenger.

It may, indeed, be a fair point to accuse the Bush administration of politicizing science. But Richard Carmona isn't the person to make it. Carmona's entire term as surgeon general has been marked by embracing every last hobgoblin promoted by the public health movement, generally above and beyond what the science says. Sometimes in spite of it. ...

The critique is fairly libertarian: negative effects of marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol are overhyped, and were overhyped by Carmona.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

A Blueprint for Reconciling Faith and Science?

Mon, 23 Jul 2007 12:35:32 -0800

The Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby had an interesting thought-piece in yesterday's paper.

Did you hear about the religious fundamentalist who wanted to teach physics at Cambridge University? This would-be instructor wasn't simply a Christian; he was so preoccupied with biblical prophecy that he wrote a book titled "Observations on the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John." Based on his reading of Daniel, in fact, he forecast the date of the Apocalypse: no earlier than 2060. He also calculated the year the world was created. When Genesis 1:1 says "In the beginning," he determined, it means 3988 BC.
Not many modern universities are prepared to employ a science professor who espouses not merely "intelligent design" but out-and-out divine creation.

The man in question is Sir Isaac Newton, whom Cambridge nominated to the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics in 1668.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Bad News, Bears

Mon, 02 Jul 2007 12:44:38 -0800

Would the oil and gas industry underwrite research that makes the plight of the polar bear seem, well, less dire? Does a polar bear swim in the Arctic? From NewScientist:

Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and his colleagues question whether polar bear populations really are declining and if sea ice, on which the animals hunt, will actually disappear as quickly as climate models predict (Ecological Complexity, DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.03.002). Soon, who receives funding for this and other work from Exxon-Mobil, has been attacking climate change science for several years. Three of the six other authors also have links to the oil industry.

If the polar bears' habitat disappears later than predicted, is that a valid excuse to delay implementing a solution? How does this study jibe with the ExxonMobil Foundation's s biodiversity efforts ("Protect Tomorrow. Today")?

Read the comments on this post...

A Cynical Morning Cartoon with Flamy McGassy

Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:34:49 -0800

It's been a while since we checked in with Flamy McGassy, but here's a toon from a couple months ago. Despite the Supreme Court ruling on C02, Flamy is unabashed in this episode: "Feeling the Heat."

The takeaway message is that despite the Court's intervention, enemies of science-based decisionmaking still lurk in the EPA. However, it is admittedly dated: the two officials featured in this cartoon Willia "Kids <3 Lead" Wehrum and Alex "Kids <3 Rocket Fuel" Beehler had their nominations withdrawn the week after this cartoon originally ran in April. Connection? Probably not.

Still, Flamy has a point: getting anything through the EPA will continue to be a struggle until January 20, 2009, at which point the oil and gas lobbyist market will be flooded. Good thing for those guys (and gals) that minimum wage got a bump up!

Read the comments on this post...

Whose playbook are they reading?

Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:15:06 -0800

Earlier this week we noted that the Bush administration is continuing its efforts to rewrite history with regard to its stance on global climate change. From E&ETV:

Monica Trauzzi: We've seen a change in tune of sorts from the president recently relating to climate change. Beyond this latest proposal, he also mentioned climate for the first time in this year's State of the Union address. Would you characterize this as a major shift in his position on climate change?

Jim Connaughton: No. I would characterize it as a continuing advancement of the president's strategy on climate change. He issued a very strong statement on climate change in June of 2001, reiterated it in July of 2001, and then launched our 10-year policy in June of 2002. I think the greater weight of the shift has been more of the public is actually paying attention to what it was the president laid down. (My emphasis)

Now this assertion has been refuted eight ways to Sunday. Interestingly, whoever's playbook the Administration is following, it's not that of conservative spinmeister Frank Luntz (of Luntz memo fame, among other things).

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

CEQ Chair Passes on Cherries, Revises History

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 08:26:15 -0800

In an interview with E&ETV last week (subscription required) White House Council on Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton managed to get through the entire interview without touting the much-used but much-cherry-picked claim that the US has been beating Europe in reducing greenhouse gas emissions

That's not to say that there wasn't some fuzzy math-talk and a bit of revisionist history.

Monica Trauzzi: You mentioned the near-term goals, what steps will the U.S. take to limit emissions in the next 10 to 20 years?
Jim Connaughton: Well, in the next 10 to 20 years we are currently working to achieve the president's goal of improving the greenhouse gas intensity of our economy by 18 percent by 2012. That's how much you emit per unit of GDP. I'm pleased to say that we are well on track to meeting that goal. In fact, last year, stunningly, America saw a 3.3 percent increase in our GDP, but we actually had a net reduction of CO2 of about 1.3 percent. So this was the first time that America has seen a real reduction in CO2 in the wake of substantial economic growth. The only two other times we've seen that in recent history have been in relation to a recession. And certainly nobody is suggesting that we should make progress on climate change by putting our economy into a recession. So this is a very positive indicator that we can become leaner, more efficient, start investing in new technologies, while still growing our economy.

It's laudable that U.S. CO2 emissions went down last year. But Connaughton basically admits here that the whole concept of "greenhouse gas intensity" is deceptive, because it obfuscates actual emissions levels. If emissions go up slower than GDP, this statistic suggests progress on greenhouse gas emissions. That might look good in a soundbite, but it won't get us where we want to be. Note also that CO2 is only one greenhouse gas -- the administration has been touting CO2 emissions a lot this year, which suggests that the complete picture may be less rosy.

The interview later turns to a familiar laughable point.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

Global Warming: Misinformation Action Center

Mon, 30 Apr 2007 05:06:01 -0800

Here's a nugget to start the week: MediaMatters, an organization that works to expose bias, discrimination, and misinformation in the news, has put together a Global Warming: Misinformation Action Center. Bookmark it!

Read the comments on this post...

Deceptive White House Climate Letter Still Making the Rounds

Wed, 25 Apr 2007 14:01:32 -0800

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and James Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality are still peddling their Feb. 7 Open Letter on the President's Position on Climate Change, a letter that plays fast-and-loose with the historical record. Despite having portions debunked cherry-picking data and misquoting President Bush, it showed up yesterday as an op-ed in the Leading the News section of The Hill under the headline President Bush consistently has addressed climate change issues.

First off, note the difference between "consistently has addressed" and "has addressed consistently." At least the headline was honest, since the President's may consistently address the issue without addressing it consistently (as has been the case). Headlines aside, here's what's wrong with this open-letter-turned-op-ed.

These responsible policies are working. America's emissions performance since 2000 is among the best in the world. According to the International Energy Agency, from 2000 to 2004, as our population increased and our economy grew by nearly 10 percent, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions increased by only 1.7 percent. By comparison, during the same period, European Union carbon dioxide emissions grew by 5 percent, with lower economic growth.

On March 12, the Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick shows why this is a deceiving case of cherry-picking data.

Between 2000 and 2001, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions temporarily declined because of the modest recession, and the dramatic drop in air traffic and travel following the 9-11 terrorist attacks. Thus, the only way to support a statement that the U.S. is "doing a better job of reducing emissions" is by choosing a starting date of 2000.

Read the rest of this post... | Read the comments on this post...

... or Convenient Fiction? News at 11

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:20:55 -0800

For those of you in the Bay Area, look for me on TV tonight. I just taped an interview serving as a counterpoint to the AEI and Pacific Research Institute-backed documentary "An Inconvenient Truth ... or Convenient Fiction?" Tonight is its World Premeire in San Francisco.

Click here for the official line on the documentary.

Barring breaking news, look for the story on San Francisco's KGO-TV ABC 7 at 11 tonight. If it makes the web, I'll be sure to blog it tomorrow.

The documentary is presented by Dr. Steven Hayward. By reputation, it does not refute global warming, just humanity's role in it -- by nitpicking the science in "An Inconvenient Truth."

Update

The story ran. Unfortunately, it did not make the cut of stories featured on-line, so if you missed it, you missed it. Most of the focus was on Dr. Hayward, who talked of objecting to alarmism although no specific scientific criticism made the story. I'm happy that I was able to interject two ideas into the story: that this kind of film creates more confusion than knowledge in the public sphere; and that PRI's and AEI's funders should be taken into account (the reporter asked him whether having oil backing may have influenced the film; such scrutiny was absent from a competing broadcast's coverage).

For a story that ran earlier on the day that includes lclimate change analysis from both Envirnonment California and the Pacific Research Institute, click here.

Read the comments on this post...