Re: [asa] Associated Press Reporter Does Science and Peer Review

Richard Blinne wrote:

>One controversy of the day is whether the global temperature is warming or cooling. The problem is what cognitive psychologists call motivated reasoning. We see what we want to see.

Agreed. But on both sides of the controversy, Mr. Blinne -- on both sides.

>Oftentimes, the story devolves into a he said/she said "balanced" piece with equal times for both views.

I haven't noticed much balance, at least in the mainstream secular media, regarding Darwinian evolution and its critics. Generally speaking, Darwin critics are mocked, condescended to, or savaged by biased reporters, editors and producers. I wish the mainstream media were guilty of the "sin" Mr. Blinne is imputing to them.

But in any case, what is Mr. Blinne suggesting as the superior alternative? That the science journalist should pick a side, and try to push the reader to believe that side rather than the other one? On what basis? Most science journalists don't know enough of the specifics to know who is right. They have journalism degrees. Or maybe, if one is lucky, a Bachelor's degree in some science, but almost never the science that the article is about, since science journalists have to cover all the science stories, not just the science stories pertaining to their own studies. And even if a science journalist happened to have a Ph.D. in climatology with a dissertation on global warming models, it would be an abdication of the reporter's role, and an adoption of the columnist's role, for the science journalist to "slant" the article so make one side in the AGW debate look good and the other look bad. It would be like having a witness to a crime serving on the jury.

>What this shows is you don't need a fancy degree to do science.

Yet Darwin skeptics are told repeatedly, here and elsewhere, that they don't know enough about this or that science to be entitled to an opinion, because they don't have Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology or population genetics or something else. I am glad to have Mr. Blinne's support for my non-specialist resistance to some of the arguments of the life scientists on this list. Though I must say, his change of heart on this issue is rather odd, as in the past he has argued that truth in science is rightfully determined by the majority of those holding Ph.D.s in a specialist area, e.g., climatology. It appears that in Mr. Blinne's universe, when a non-specialist agrees with him about global warming, non-specialists warrant an encomium, but when one disagrees with him, non-specialists need to learn their place.

>I will be addressing this topic in a future post about a fascinating paper in last week's Science.

I would be much more impressed if Mr. Blinne would send us, instead of posts summarizing pro-AGW articles and blog posts that he has read and admired, a copy of one of his peer-reviewed papers in the field of climatology or any related earth science.

I would be equally impressed if he could make clear to me what he has not made clear to me in his twenty or thirty posts on the subject over the last year, i.e., what relevance he thinks the debate over AGW has to Christian faith or Christian theology, which is, after all, the focus of this discussion group. In his posts I discern statistics, claims about computer modelling, and claims of a sociological and political nature about the biases of those who express doubts about aspects of AGW, but I've heard precious little about God, Creation, the Bible, etc.

I would also appreciate it if Mr. Blinne would use English, and not coded and phonetically impossible locutions such as "pwned". It isn't worth the time wasted to consult Wikipedia to find out the latest offenses to human communication that the techno-geek community has adopted.

Cameron.

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Rich Blinne
  To: asa ; Randy Isaac
  Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 11:15 AM
  Subject: [asa] Associated Press Reporter Does Science and Peer Review

  Irrespective of what side many of us find ourselves in the many scientific controversies of the day, what we can agree on is that science journalism is for the most part poor. Oftentimes, the story devolves into a he said/she said "balanced" piece with equal times for both views. This makes it easier on the journalist because it does not require him or her to have a deep knowledge of the material. You write the "conflict" narrative first and then find quotes to fill it in. Because of this, it should be noted when there is an exception and I found one here: http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html

  One controversy of the day is whether the global temperature is warming or cooling. The problem is what cognitive psychologists call motivated reasoning. We see what we want to see. Thus, the same data produces two grossly different interpretations. Instead of recycling the old conflict narrative Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press wanted to see which interpretation was correct. So he designed a clever combination of a single-blind protocol and peer review. Namely, he took the labels off and sent the raw data from both the surface data (which the climate change believers prefer) and the satellite data (which the climate change skeptics prefer) to statistics experts for analysis.

  Their uniform answer was a warming trend.

    Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

  Their comments are illustrative. For example:

    Saying there's a downward trend since 1998 is not scientifically legitimate, said David Peterson, a retired Duke University statistics professor and one of those analyzing the numbers.

  and

    "If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

  and

    Grego produced three charts to show how choosing a starting date can alter perceptions. Using the skeptics' satellite data beginning in 1998, there is a "mild downward trend," he said. But doing that is "deceptive."

    The trend disappears if the analysis starts in 1997. And it trends upward if you begin in 1999, he said.

  The best-selling authors of Freakonomics have also pushed the cooling narrative. How did these guys miss this? They admitted they eyeballed the graph rather than subjecting it to a rigorous statistical analysis.

    A line in [their] book says: "Then there's this little-discussed fact about global warming: While the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased."

    That led to a sharp rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which said the book mischaracterizes climate science with "distorted statistics."

    [Freakonomics author] Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, said he does not believe there is a cooling trend. He said the line was just an attempt to note the irony of a cool couple of years at a time of intense discussion of global warming. Levitt said he did not do any statistical analysis of temperatures, but "eyeballed" the numbers and noticed 2005 was hotter than the last couple of years. Levitt said the "cooling" reference in the book title refers more to ideas about trying to cool the Earth artificially.

  Face it Professor Levitt, you got pwned. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pwn) Huzzah to Mr. Borenstein. This piece should be submitted to the Pulitzer Committee. What this shows is you don't need a fancy degree to do science. You just need to follow the method. It's also not limited to areas of study that traditionally are considered "science". I will be addressing this topic in a future post about a fascinating paper in last week's Science.

  Rich Blinne
  Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 28 06:52:59 2009