Thank you for this, Nate Silver.
One article on FiveThirtyEight has been disproportionately responsible for substantive criticism from readers. That was a piece we ran March 19 from Roger Pielke Jr., a freelance contributor to FiveThirtyEight and a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. The story concerned the economic costs of climate-related disasters. The central thesis of the piece was that although these costs are increasing, the rise can be accounted for by the growing wealth of the global population, rather than by a rise in the number of disaster events due to climate change.
Reception to the article ran about 80 percent negative in the comments section and on social media. A reaction like that compels us to think carefully about the piece and our editorial process.
It’s helpful to know that Fivethirtyeight is just another product of spineless pc conformity before I waste any time with it.
Update – more reaction from Judith Curry.
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.
538’s position is essentially the old “97% of scientists….etc.”
Followed by “the IPCC says….”. Waste of time.
The “97%” comment comes up all the time. Mot recently for me in a Facebook comment
by a friend of the stepdaughter. It may be just as well that I can’t reply directly.
I am sick and tired of being told what I should think; or what I DO think. After years
of it my tendency now is to wax obscene, which would be a waste of time and which
would cause Miss McMillan’s prissy virtue filter to throw a hissy fit.
Although I would have preferred Nate Silver to strongly support the skeptical side of the argument, I actually understand where he is coming from. His knowledge of climate science is probably not in-depth so, as he writes, his ability to judge the validity of the pro and anti sides is limited. He was also likely shocked at how dirty the fight between skeptics, lukewarmers and establishment climate scientists can get. I bet he was expecting a vigorous yet polite debate from the pocket-protector crowd.I think that his decision to commission a piece by someone who disagrees with Pielke is a good response. He didn’t say he was banning skeptics or lukewarmers, which would be unforgivable.
I think non-alarmists like Pielke have a better case. By increasing exposure to the rational, lukewarmer argument vs. the prophets of doom those commenters who were shocked and outraged by a non-conformist argument on CAGW might rethink what has been preached to them for 30 years. It is quite possibly the first time many readers have heard a lukewarmers argument that wasn’t filtered through the mocking, self-righteous pro-CAGW media. Great…more debate please, Nate, is my reaction.
Kate and Politico can make sill remarks about Silver all they want, doesn’t change the fact that he’s incredibly objective and smart. Dem supporters are getting angry over his dire forecasts for Dems. Instead of voting to decide the next election we should just have Nate call it!
From what I have noted the non-alarmist (a mild term) are invariably more informative and less ad hominem than the alarmists.
Alarmists do not abide by Roberts Rules of civil discourse/debate.
It has been my experience that when challenged the warmists usually shift directly to vicious then run away, whining about bullies, when I instinctively react…..if somebody gets rude…I redefine the term…..
I guess there is some merit to the saw “the eyes are the mirror of the soul”…..been there, seen it, done it, and apparently ready to do it again.
Spinal Tap,
Silver doesn’t appear to be objective, let alone smart, if he bases his editorial decisions on ad hoc popularity contests.
He’a a hack. Like Kate says, this is good to know.
The best answer to the stupidity of the 97% is to remind them 100% of Alchemists were certain they could lead into gold and 99% of doctors were certain ulcers were caused by stress or . . .
There of dozens of examples of previous scientific certainties that have proved out wrong.
The Sun still goes around the Earth, right?
The 97% number, like most AGW claptrap is made up. Google it. If anyone ever mentions the famous “97% of scientists….” you know they know nothing. Challenge them to provide the information on these 97% of scientists.
538 doesn’t have a hope of redeeming itself. Its fault lies with Silver himself. Rather than being smart, he’s “too clever” by far. Calling an election – the last US one – was not especially difficult if you were paying attention to closely to the emergent political scene at the time.
No, his nemesis will be the very thing he aspires to create: his s0-called “data journalism”. This is nothing more than $24 worth of beads and baubles used to bilk the indians out of Manhattan. McIntyre demonstrated, if nothing else, how it was possible to torture almost anything out of data for pretty presentation to low-intel viewers, and be comfortable that will a heavy dose of “reference to authority”, they will believe anything. Heck, they gave the empty suit named Obama a second term, based on absolutely nothing (can’t fault him for disappointing – nothing was offered, and he delivered…) Read the link to his new “business model” to see how off the reservation he is.
His editorial attack on Pielke Sr (who appears to have none of the wisdom of Jr) shows that he has absolutely no idea what objective journalism is. His reaction shows fully that he will twist in the wind to retain his perceived credibility with his perceived market. His “data journalism” is lost right out of the gate. He will bias it because he cannot help himself, and he’s laid that out clear in his response to comments (from mostly unknown internet critics) to Pielke’s article. 538 has once more become an utter waste of electrons.
It could be worse. It is an indication the tide is turning that Pielke Jr. was given a platform in the first place. No surprise the Facebook mob was 80% against. The issue of weather disaster damage is kind of an irrelevant one in my mind. For example, if you can’t show an global increase in cyclone/hurricanes over the period of alleged anthropogenically-driven climate change, then that should be the end of the argument.
There is only one word to describe these milquetoasts such as Nate Silver and Kobe Bryant who crumble before the Black and Homosexual lynch mobs that do the Left’s dirty work: sickening.
The Left have become nothing but “a criminal organization masquerading as a political party.” says John Walsh (and I agree completely)
http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2014/03/27/time-to-break-out-the-rico-statute-and-break-up-the-democrats/
and those on the Right, when they grab their ankles, think they are making progress when the Left offers them their choice of lubricant.
I have lost hope that the U.S. and Europe can ever recover their status as the standard bearers of Western Civilisation. But I have not lost hope that Western Civilisation has no champion. He is an unlikely man, an imperfect man, and he may not even know that he carries that burden but he has a spine and he has no tolerance for the decadent foolishness that has enveloped our culture. And all of you know who I am talking about.
Calling an election – the last US one – was not especially difficult if you were paying attention to closely to the emergent political scene at the time.
Then why didn’t more people do it? Nate called it to the letter whereas people here and in the rest of the bubble were pointing at Real Clear Politics and insisting that if you squint and look sideways, Romney can win! (he could never win). Even reasonable folks like Steve Forbes regurgitated that Koolade.
Nate Silver isn’t as good at calling non-national races but he is still very smart. Oh and before you condemn him for an editorial decision you should probably give him time to actually make that editorial decision.
There’s an excellent discussion of the topic at Judith Curry’s blog:
http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconvenient-statistics/
A significant correction to my post (no, not because of anything Spinal Tap said)but I conflated Pielke Sr. with Jr. – read the names too quickly.
Reading all of that I feel as though I had just dived into a cess pool.
Here is the best rebuttal to the 97% fallacy:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/cooks-fallacy-97-consensus-study-is-a-marketing-ploy-some-journalists-will-fall-for/
A quick look shows repeated statements “RP Jr. has repeatedly been debunked.” No, his opinions have repeatedly been attacked. His science is more than good enough to have been included in most of the IPCC FULL reports.