Sunday, January 19, 2014

NYT journalist Revkin disappears critical comments on Michael Mann's anti-science within 1 hour of mention on Twitter

NYT journalist Andrew Revkin has disappeared some of his published harsh criticism of Michael Mann, which previously stated "it's counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions" in reference to Mann, disappeared by Revkin less than 1 hour following my tweet addressed to both Revkin and Mann.  

The original article stated that Revkin agreed with Ken Caldeira, Gavin Schmidt, and Steven Schneider that "it's counterproductive [for Michael Mann] to blur lines between observations based on science and value-based opinions." In other words, Mann should stick to objective science instead of "blurring the lines" between science and anti-scientific "value based opinions," but this all-too-true quote was quickly disappeared and replaced with much more obfuscated text:

Updated, 4:54 p.m. | 
There’s a troubling section, however, in which Mann creates a flawed dichotomy, hailing a paper by James Hansen and Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University (and others) pressing for deep carbon cuts and criticizing a peer,* Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, for complaining that the paper failed the Stephen Schneider / Gavin Schmidt test for distinguishing between the “is” of science and the “ought” determined by individual feelings about the state of the world and how to shape it...
Climate scientists, like all of us, come in all shapes and sizes and demeanors. I agree with Mann that it’s unwise for scientists to avoid the public debate over drivers of climate risk and options for reducing it. But I agree with Caldeira (and Gavin Schmidt and the departed Steve Schneider) that it’s counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science and values-based views on solutions. 
Postscript, 5:00 p.m. *| At the asterisk above, my characterization of Mann’s positions, as Mann and others have said on Twitter, was indeed too caricatured — although I maintain that his piece could easily be interpreted as very sympathetic to one approach and critical of the other.
Here is my original tweet, sent within 10 minutes of publication of the original article on NYT:

vs : "it’s counterproductive to blur lines between observations based on science &" opinion
1:54 PM - 19 Jan 2014 · Details

Anyone able to pull up a cached copy of the original NYT article?


Mann on advocacy and responsibility

Michael Mann calls Judith Curry’s Senate testimony ‘anti-science’ — Curry Issues Challenge to Mann

Curry: 'I see a scientist (Michael Mann) making an accusation against another scientist (me) that I am ‘anti-science,’ with respect to my EPW testimony. This is a serious accusation, particularly since my testimony is part of the Congressional record'

Curry Challenges Mann: 'Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide.'

Curry on Skepticism: 'Skepticism is one of the norms of science. We build confidence in our theories as they are able to withstand skeptical challenges. If instead scientists defend their theories by calling their opponents names, well that is a sign that their theories are in trouble.'

Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. defends Curry from Mann’s slurs

Pielke Sr. 'On Mann's attack on you, I have been the recipient of such vitriolic attacks by others both up front and behind my back' -- 'Please keep up your excellent and very much needed involvement in the climate science discussions!'

1 comment:

  1. Andrew Revkin's comment should stand as originally delivered - an accurate opinion on Andrew's part and certainly not worthy of deletion.

    Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.'s advice to Professor Curry should also be taken, by her, as VERY sound advice. Let me add my "Amen."