FiveThirtyEight Apologizes On Behalf Of Controversial Climate Science Writer

[uhnope]

Source: Huff Post

NEW YORK -- Two prominent climate scientists say Roger Pielke Jr., a controversial writer at Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight site, sent emails threatening possible legal action in response to their criticism of his findings for the data-driven news site.

Pielke says it's "ridiculous" to characterize the emails as threats against Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. FiveThirtyEight, however, apologized to both men.

"Roger is a freelance contributor and his private communications do not represent FiveThirtyEight," Silver said in a statement to HuffPost. "We had candid conversations with Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth. We made clear that Roger's conversations with them did not reflect FiveThirtyEight's editorial values."

Revelations of the private correspondence are particularly poorly timed for FiveThirtyEight, which has been dogged online throughout most of its 11-day existence by the climate change dispute. The controversy was given increased exposure Thursday night on "The Daily Show."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/28/fivethirtyeight-climate-change-dispute_n_5049279.html

---

I thought Nate Silver was a good guy. Really it's time the sane world stops tolerating the climate deniers

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Damage control.

[Treant]

2. I'll still listen

to his political data, but I'll install AdBlock before doing so.

[BlueStreak]

3. So SIlver is featuring crackpots to pump traffic to his new site?

It is his right to sell his soul to the highest bidder, but that giant sucking sound you hear is Silver's reputation imploding.

[Dawson Leery]

4. Must take Nate with a few grains of salt now.

[Ratty]

5. It's an odd Libertarian blind spot I suppose

I thought Nate Silver was a good guy. Really it's time the sane world stops tolerating the climate deniers

For somebody who prizes objectivity and quantifiable data over personal philosophy he seems to have fallen into the the trap himself. Libertarians don't believe in man-made climate change solely because it challenges their philosophy that an unfettered free market can self-correct every problem on Earth. A problem that can only be solved by government regulation simply can't exist.

[reACTIONary]

14. +10 (nt)

[JHB]

15. He was also at an advantage in 2012...

...when vapid Washington reporting and a host of self-serving interests were vested in being willfully blind to any bad news pointing to a Romney loss. Hard data analysis cut through all the spin, and Silver made both the grifters and group thinkers look like chumps. A victory for "the reality-based community."

A couple of days ago in his blog, Paul Krugman speculated that the experience may have led Silver to think that the experts in other fields were just as spin-centric and easy to foil, when in fact in some fields - like climate science - they're just as good as him or better at crunching numbers, and they have the background in their fields to let them find the real needles hiding in the haystacks of data.

If that's the case, and Silver thinks he can "surf" into any area and not hit the rocks, his brand is in for a world of hurt before too long.

[Prophet 451]

16. Very well put

Libertarianism is the political equivelent of Scientology: A rather kooky cult with weird tenets of faith you aren't allowed to point out are bullshit.

[Blue_Tires]

19. +1

[alarimer]

6. For a guy that's so big on data, why would he hire someone who ignores the data on climate change?

Climate science is data-driven as well. But this Roger Pielke cherry-picks (a scientific no-no) the data on climate to make it show what he wants it to show. That seems contrary to Silver's method.

But Nate Silver's book also featured climate change denial, so I think it's what he actually thinks, despite the fact that nearly all of the data point to major climate change occurring.

[SunSeeker]

10. For traffic on his new site. He sold his soul for the clicks. nt

[Cha]

21. Sounds like it.. and he's not alone with the soul selling for the almighty "Clicks". nt

[Timez Squarez]

7. That's why I now give Nate Silver a grain of salt.

His prediction currently as it stands is completely ridiculous and insane.

Senate remains status quo, and Democrats with a surprise upset to retake the House will occur, and Grayson will be elected as the Speaker of the House, not Pelosi. She'll be tossed aside as useless.

It's time to remove corporatists from the party and throw it aside. It's time to find the new soul and the fire of the Democratic Party and pull it way to the left.

[2banon]

8. It would be my wildest fantasy to see Grayson as speaker of the house..

I wish that were within the realm of possibility...

[greiner3]

20. "His prediction currently as it stands is completely ridiculous and insane. "

Nate makes NO predictions about anything.

What his role is is using his considerable talents as a statistician to crunch the numbers from surveys and then uses data based upon that information to assign probabilities to topics such as sports and politics.

[AverageJoe90]

9. Nate Silver *IS* a good guy.

Not so sure about Pielke, but Silver is still a good guy.....even if he did make a pretty big mistake.

[SunSeeker]

11. How about apologizing to the reality-based community for posting that drivel on your site, Nate?

[davidpdx]

12. IMHO he's made a series of bad choices

Selling out to the NYT was one of the first.

[cheapdate]

13. I don't harbor a grudge for somone who isn't convinced by the evidence

that compels my belief in established atmospheric science and the carbon dioxide theory of the climate. The notion that a clear, colorless gas present in seemingly small atmospheric concentrations can have a significant influence on the planet's radiative balance is not necessarily an easy concept to grasp for some people. Carbon dioxide selectively emits and absorbs radiation at different frequencies. It's transparent to incoming solar radiation, which is mostly in ultraviolet and visible frequencies. Because of the way that bodies in space radiate heat, the earth re-radiates energy in infrared frequencies. Carbon dioxide traps heat and prevents it from escaping back into space because it absorbs radiation in infrared frequencies.

The physics are indisputable and have been known in their basic form since the early part of the 20th century. Unless there is an unexpected and sustained dimming of the Sun, or unless a new and previously unknown negative forcing or negative feedback mechanism is discovered, the earth will warm as the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases.

Climatology is an extremely complex science that incorporates atmospheric science, geophysics, oceanography, etc. I believe it's conclusions are sound -- even indisputable -- but it's complexity leaves it susceptible to spurious challenges. Approaching a critical challenge to climate science from a strictly statistical perspective is misguided and inappropriate. Nate Silver is a consummate statistician and unfortunately will tend to take this approach.

I don't hold a grudge against him, but I believe very strongly that he's dead wrong.

[Prophet 451]

17. You are giving the deniers far too much credit

A sceptic can be convinced by evidence. If a 97% agreement among climatologists, a 99% agreement in published research, a strong consensus and the fact that you can literally see the ice melting, is not enough to convince them, then they are not unconvinced by the evidence, they're flatly ignoring it.

Global warming deniers are no different than creationists and it's time we stopped pretending they have anything useful to say on the subject.

[cheapdate]

18. I know "creationists" and I know "climate science deniers".

I have cousins in Alabama who are creationists. Living and working in Tennessee and Kentucky, I'm often surrounded by "creationists" and "climate science deniers".

I'm not going to walk through life angry at people because I think their beliefs are irrational and their thinking is flawed.

If they're willing, I'll stand toe to toe and challenge their beliefs. I'll argue for my position with every tool I can bring to bear. In the political sphere, I'll work to promote what I believe is best for our living earth and all of the creatures who inhabit it. That means supporting leaders who believe as I do that our reliance on burning fossil fuels is reckless and immoral given our present understanding of the climate.