The blogosphere is abuzz about this breathless Guardian story alleging that the American Enterprise Institute is offering cash payments to scientists who will "undermine" the new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) Some suggest this is a scandalous example of "buying science." I've obtained copies of the letters in question and an internal memo circulated to AEI staff by AEI President Christopher DeMuth, and it seems to me there is less here than the Guardian and others might suggest.
Here is the text of the letter described in the Guardian report. It was sent by Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green of AEI in July 2006 to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M, a climate scientist who has been critical of climate models in the past.
Dear Prof. Schroeder:In these letters AEI was certainly seeking out prominent analysts willing to participate in a critical examination of the IPCC report, but I don't think the letter suggests AEI wanted Professor Schroeder or anyone else to tailor their views to AEI's agenda. Rather it looks to me like an effort to encourage those who have been critical of climate projections in the past to provide a detailed assessment of the new IPCC report. A second letter was sent out earlier this year to a handful of scientists and economists and others seeking papers on climate change science and policy more broadly.The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.
The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.
From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.
If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.
Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.
Cordially,
Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar
AEI President Christopher DeMuth took great exception to the Guardian story, and circulated the following memo to AEI staff.
February 2, 2007If there were evidence that AEI was trying to get individual scientists to change their tune in return for large honoraria, there would undoubtedly be a story here. But there is no evidence this occurred. The general views of Professors Schroeder and North are well knowm to those who work in this area, and were unlikely to be swayed by ths offer (and they were not). More broadly, just as there may be financial incentives to write analyses desired by corporate funders, there are also financial incentives to tailor research projects and findings to increase the likelihood of receiving government grants. This is why I believe scientific studies should be analyzed on their merits, not the source of funding.NOTE FOR AEI SCHOLARS, FELLOWS, AND STAFF
Many of us have received telephone calls and emails prompted by a shoddy article on the front page of today’s Guardian, the British newspaper, headlined “Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study” (posted at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html#article_continue).
The article uses several garden-variety journalistic tricks to create the impression of a story where none exists. Thus, AEI is described as a “lobby group” (we are a research group that does no lobbying and takes no institutional positions on policy issues); ExxonMobil’s donations to AEI are either bulked up by adding donations over many years, or simply made up (the firm’s annual AEI support is generous and valued but is a fraction of the amount reported—no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget); and AEI is characterized as the Bush administration’s “intellectual Cosa Nostra” and “White House surrogates” (AEI scholars criticize or praise Bush administration policies—every day, on the merits). All of this could have been gleaned from a brief visit to the AEI website.
But the article’s specific charge (announced in the headline) is a very serious one. Although most of you will appreciate the truth on your own, I thought it would be useful to provide a few details.
First, AEI has published a large volume of books and papers on climate change issues over the past decade and has held numerous conferences on the subject. A wide range of views on the scientific and policy issues have been presented in these publications and conferences. All of them are posted on our website. It would be easy to find policy arguments in our publications and conferences that people at ExxonMobil (or other corporations that support AEI) disagree with—as well as those they agree with and, I hope, some they hadn’t thought of until we presented them. Our latest book on the subject, Lee Lane’s Strategic Options for Bush Administration Climate Policy, advocates a carbon tax, which I’m pretty sure ExxonMobil opposes (the book also dares to criticize some of the Bush administration’s climate-change policies!).
Second, attempting to disentangle science from politics on the question of climate change causation, and to fashion policies that take account of the uncertainties concerning causation, are longstanding AEI interests. Several recent issues of our “Environmental Policy Outlook” address these issues, as does Ken Green’s “Q & A” article in the November-December issue of The American. The new research project that Ken and Steve Hayward have been organizing is a continuation of these interests. I am attaching the two letters that Steve and Ken have sent out to climate change scientists and policy experts (the first one emphasizing the scientific and climate-modeling issues addressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the second, more recent one covering broader policy issues as well)—and invite you to read them and compare them with the characterization in the Guardian article. The first letter, sent last summer to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M (and also to his colleague Gerald North), is the one quoted by the Guardian. Ken and Steve canvassed scholars with a range of views on the scientific and policy issues, with an eye to the intrinsic quality and interest of their work rather than to whether partisans might characterize them as climate change “skeptics” or “advocates.” They certainly did not avoid those with a favorable view of the IPCC reports—such as Professor Schroeder himself.
Third, what the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI—and Brookings, Harvard, and the University of Manchester—to pay individuals at other research institutions for commissioned work, and to cover their travel expenses when they come to the sponsoring institution to present their papers. The levels of authors’ honoraria vary from case to case, but a $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest.
We should all be aware that political attacks such as the Guardian‘s are more than sloppy or sensation-seeking journalism: they are efforts to throttle debate, and therefore aim at the heart of AEI’s purposes and methods. The successive IPCC climate change reports contain a wealth of valuable information, but there has been a longstanding effort to characterize them as representing more of a “scientific consensus” than they probably are, and to gloss over uncertainties and disagreements within the IPCC documents themselves. Consensus plays an important role in science and scientific progress, but so does disputation—reasoned argument is essential to good science, and competition of ideas is essential to scientific progress. AEI is strongly opposed to the politicization of science, just as it is to the politicization of economics and other disciplines. On climate change as on other issues, we try to sort out the areas of genuine consensus from the areas of reasonable debate and uncertainty. Ken and Steve’s letter to Professor Schroeder was clear about this: “we are looking for . . . a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy.” The effort to anathematize opposing views is the standard recourse of the ideologue; one of AEI’s highest purposes, here as in many other contentious areas, is to ensure that such efforts do not succeed.
Chris DeMuth
In the end, some may wish AEI was not sponsoring critical research and analysis of the IPCC report and current climate policy proposals, but it's hardly a scandal that they do.
UPDATE: AEI's David Frum chimes in here. Frum finds the Guardian story and the charges it has spawned to be absurd. Interestingly enough, Frum also supports the adoption of a carbon tax to address the threat of climate change.
Some folks have pointed me to this item on TNR's "The Plank" by Bradford Plummer. I don't find it any more compelling than the Guardian story, and the suggestion that there should be no criticism of the IPCC report because "any scientists out there who had legitimate complaints about the report . . .could have worked with the IPCC and registered their objections during the drafting process" is positively silly. Set aside the growing critique that the new IPCC report is not alarmist enough, as I discussed here, the Summary for Policymakers released last week is ultimately revised and approved by participating governments, not the hundreds of scientists who participate in the development of the underlying report. The actual IPCC report itself is not immune from critique either. As a "consensus" document that is based upon research conducted prior to a set date, it cannot hope to resolve all of the continuing debates about various aspects of climate science. Judgments are made during the drafting process to accomodate differing views. Further, it presents various scenarios with potentially different implications for public policy. Sincere efforts to distill, analyze, and critique the report, and explain why policy decisions should rely on certain findings more than others, are helpful to the policy development process. This is true whether such efforts are sponsored by AEI, the Pew Foundation, or Environmental Defense.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "Scenes from the Climate Inquisition":
- The Senatorial Inquisition of AEI:
- On Ad Hominem Arguments:
- WaPo on AEI Funding Climate Critiques:
- Did AEI Seek to Buy Climate Scientists?
1. There was an IPCC report. This has, well, some indication of global warming.
2. The AEI, which may have some biases, is offering a cash reward for people to, *ahem* review the report.
What is the reasonable inference that can be drawn?
*sigh*
As an aside, there are constant criticisms from folks like Patrick Michaels that climate research is biased because of funding. That criticism is essentially the same as the criticism levelled by the blogs you refute, and is silly. I encourage you to slap both sides when that argument is made.
*Ahem,* nothing.
The first line of the article is "Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."
As DeMuth documents, that's wrong or misleading on at least three different levels. The left-wing blogosphere (and two different people who emailed me) is certainly taking it as an allegation that AEI is trying to buy science.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
DeMuth admits that they offered honoraria, up to $10,000, to fund research and the publishing of research that seeks to undermine the IPCC. That's exactly what the Guardian says. DeMuth is right to refute blogs who call this a bribe, but that first line just states the same thing that DeMuth states.
How can you write this?
It's interesting that the solicitation letter is phrased this way.
Does anyone know a) how many letters were sent, b) how many scientists accepted the solicitation and c) how many of those highlighted the "strengths" of the IPCC process?
I am curious if a paper that said the IPCC process and conclusions were - in short - spot on would be or was funded by AEI.
How can you write this?
Well, aside from the fact that the scientists who were offered the grant/honoraria were not at all what you just claimed?
If we're tossing stones at people who offer money to people to do research that only supports a given premise, then about 90% of pro-anthopogenic warming papers would be buried in pebbles...
For those of you who are complaining about "buying" of science, you need to learn how science is paid for in the first place. Most big-name scientific conferences and meetings hand out honoraria checks like candy, in amounts ranging up to the ludicrous for very little work. This case is different in that it would involve weeks of actual research, along with some travel, by someone who's pretty high up in their field.
Meeting planners pay higher amounts for plain old political speakers (find out how much Al Gore makes for one appearance, just to repeat what is available on his DVD for $20).
Which fields are these? If you're referring to things drug companies do, that's not going to help your cause by a long shot.
And, if it's in the physical sciences, I want to know how I can get some of this cash.
Incidentally, the case that industry-funded research is more suspect than government-funded research is very strong. There are very few cases where the NSF stops giving somebody grants for finding some result the administration doesn't like; such studies are ubiquitous. How many people get industry funding, find and publish results contrary to that industry's interests, and continue to receive funding?
Of course, you are free to dismiss Mr. DeMuth as a damn liar (this being America afterall), but be aware that you do so without the benefit of "facts" (they're the little nuggets of truth that make arguments persuasive).
Are you denying that Schroeder was picked because AEI has seen his past work?
And I'll toss a stone at any other example - like this - you put forth.
Uh, big points on bluster, but I think the excitement made you forgot to include the "nuggets," or evenf a nugget, in your comment. (And a quote doesn't count as a fact.)
They managed to fight off meaningful regulation through decades of rearguard action, attacking the scientific consensus as not being complete, emphasising the need for disputation etc.
Is this the same? Mebbe. Mebbe not. But I'm a little distrustful of ExxonMobil... um... AEI's rhetoric in this case.
Remember... 4 out of 5 doctors prefer Global Warming.
1. The IPCC, which is a large group of climate scientists, has released their first report (this is their fourth since 1990) that shows the evidence for global warming is uniequivocal (>90%). In other words, in their very carefully couched language, this is a strong scientific consensus for global warming with a likely anthropgenic cause.
2. The Guardian learns that the AEI is offering a large cash reward and travel (tips too!) for research done on that research. While I would never impugn the motives of the AEI, I don't think the winner will publish a paper that isn't
completely lacking in realitydismissive of the IPCC's claims.3. Some bloggers characterize the Guardian's story about the honorarium as a bribe, and hyperventilate as only blogger can.
So... where's the story. 1, 2, or 3?
Aaron, if you're in the physical sciences, and you haven't been offered honoraria for little technical tasks, all I can suggest is that you've got little enough reputation in your field to have become visible to the rest of the world.
But perhaps I just don't get out enough.
Move along.
Here's your check, get going.
God, is it from drinking too much Evian? (Reverse the word and you'll get the idea)
No, for writing a paper with significant research and other work, along with a presentation. And yes, that's pretty common in a lot of fields (medicine, for the most part, and not funded by drug companies to bolster their drug sales). A typical situation is that of a medical company that hires a well-known surgeon to walk a bunch of their people through a difficult procedure that uses equipment like the ones they sell.
I've seen people carry home multi-thousand dollar checks from medical conferences for merely giving a short speech based on their prior work, without having to do much more than prep a Power Point show. Hell, look at what "management consultants" get for showing up and telling people that they need, well, more management consulting...
Yes, there is, especially when you're asking them to do some actual work, which should take more than a few weeks to perform. This isn't like tossing off a blog post or a newspaper article, you know.
If you discount the "solicited" papers, then we should start with telling everyone that the IPCC reports are no longer valid, since they certainly started by weeding out the scientists who have said even mildly critical things about global warming, and paid their "consultants" for their time and travel...
These are his remarks as he accepted the $250,000 Heinz Foundation award
"I want to thank, Teresa Heinz and the Foundation for this Award, which I hope will encourage other scientists to speak their minds."
Award recipients receive a medallion and an unrestricted cash prize of up to $250,000.
If this was a right wing foundation it would be villified as a bribe.
Where is the fairness here?
Also, it is interesting to note he received this award in the spring of 2001 when John Kerry was campaigning for President of the United States.
When James Hansen complains about the Bush administration meddling in global warming science, it is not hard to see his conflicts of interest here.
Again, where is the balance in reporting?
Let me guess...left wing foundations are pure of heart and have no bias.
A critical examination doesn't sound bad, except the kind of critical examination that the AEI is looking for is made clear by the following comment: "the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work."
Last time I checked, before you decide that IPCC report contains "summary conclusions" that are "poorly supported by the analytical work" and the product of "self-selection bias" one has to do a neutral critical examination, not one that assumes that these factors will be present before the examination even occurs.
It is clear what sort of perspective that the AEI is trying to buy here. They write: "We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy."
Clearly, the focus here is on limitations. Which obviouisly exist in any scientific endeavor. So yes, contra to Adler, the AEI is expecting scholars to tailor their views to a certain agenda. AEI is expecially interested in limitations, rather than a balanced view and neutral truly independent analysis.
This whole affair is scandalous. Any serious scholar who happens to be affiliated with AEI probably should reconsider, in order to preserve their reputation and credibility. Working for AEI is kind of like branding yourself as being untrustworthy. Someone who can be bought. An intellectual whore.
That might be true were this the first report summary from the IPCC but the quote is plainly about the IPCC and its previous reports, not the latest report.
Tob
(Remember back in the day, when one actually had to read an article to determine whether or not the author was biased...)
PS: Actually, I *do* urge that the government immediately cease funding all scientific endevors, but only because I urge they stop engaging in all actions for which there is no Constitutionally authorized power.
I certainly hope so, because if they were paid or compensated for their time and efforts then that would be a scanadalous affair which revealed the IPCC as a group of dishonest, untrustworthy scholars who were bought off as intellectual whores.
Right?
So, you admit that the AEI has an anti-IPCC agenda and that it is trying to find scholars to support that agenda?
That would be my reading. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see where the AEI is soliciting lies.
Tob
It is one thing to be paid a salary which enables one to survive. It is another to be paid for a paper that is intended to advance a particular agenda, rather than search for the noble truth, wherever that may take us.
When you are willing to distort the truth for money, you are an intellectual whore. When you are paid to search for the undistorted truth, and you pursue that truth relentlessly, regardless of whose agenda it may or may not advance, then you are a true scholar, worth of respect and esteem.
Those who work for AEI are branding themselves as intellectual whores. It is a self-inflicted wound.
"DeMuth admits that they offered honoraria, up to $10,000, to fund research and the publishing of research that seeks to undermine the IPCC." No, he said AEI offered honoraria to fund research and the publishing of research about the IPCC: "Ken and Steve canvassed scholars with a range of views on the scientific and policy issues, with an eye to the intrinsic quality and interest of their work rather than to whether partisans might characterize them as climate change “skeptics” or “advocates.” They certainly did not avoid those with a favorable view of the IPCC reports—-such as Professor Schroeder himself."
Loki13 writes "While I would never impugn the motives of the AEI, I don't think the winner will publish a paper that isn't completely lacking in reality dismissive of the IPCC's claims," an argument based on the false premises that (1) this is a contest rather than a commission; and (2) AEI approached only scholars who would provide a supposedly preferred approach, though AEI is not a monolithic institution that has published only one strain of opinion on this issue.
Viscus writes that the request sought only limitations. But this is false: the letter says "In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy," which is hardly seeking a tailored result (as opposed to topic). This anonymous blogger then proceeds to engage in a series of insults that demonstrates precisely the ideological shouting down of discussion that DeMuth warns against.
The double-standards exhibited by the AEI critics (IPCC funding is disregarded; AEI funding automatically disqualifies a scholar of any stripe or opinion, because a tiny fraction of that money comes from Exxon) aren't limited to the underlying issue, but even go to the meta-discussion. For example, R78 writes: "Is poster Ted Frank the same Ted Frank employed by the AEI? Isn't it customary to disclose that sort of thing?" My affiliation is hardly a secret, and identified in the the URL I provided next to my name. But I can't help note the irony of an anonymous poster questioning the completeness of disclosure by a comment poster.
Good. Then we are in agreement about what the AEI is all about. Our only difference is that you don't have a problem with the AEI hiring intellectual whores. In contrast, I do have a problem with intellectual prostitution.
Is there any indication that the solicited scientists have or are willing to distort the truth for money or other considerations?
Tob
I am afraid that the poster is absolutely right about the necessity of you disclosing your affiliation with AEI before weighing in on a discussion concerning the credibility of that very organization. This is nothing more than dishonesty via omission, though perhaps negligent rather than intentional. Your affiliation with AEI may be "well-known" to yourself, but it isn't well-known generally. You also are not the only Ted Frank in existence. So a reasonable person, even if they knew that there existed a Ted Frank working for AEI would not assume that the Ted Frank commenting on this blog is the same person. Your use of the name "Ted Frank" does not lead one to say "Aha! Of course, you must be the Ted Frank affiliated with AEI."
You should just admit that you made a mistake, rather than criticize someone who accurately pointed out your mistake.
I note that you continue to refuse to address the substance of anything said.
If you emphasize certain truths over other truths in order to advance an agenda, then you are distorting the overall truth. That is clearly what the AEI is seeking here. It is quite explicit in seeking someone to counter the
(1) "self-selection bias"
(2) resistance "to reasonable criticism and dissent"
(3) summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work
With a heavy emphasis on the "limitations" of the work as a whole, not on an honest evaluation.
AEI is not an organization totally lacking in sophistication. They aren't going to explicitly say, "we want you to dishonestly tailor your views to suit our agenda." But it is very clear, as you have conceded, that AEI has an anti-IPCC agenda.
So, put it all together. Any researcher to whom this letter is directed would be able to similarly detect the agenda that the AEI intends to advance and would know what emphasis the AEI is looking for. (The letter screams: Emphasize limitations! Talk about self-selection bias. Lack of openness to dissent. Unsupported conclusions.)
I am not sure I understand your disagreement with me. Should you provide me with a list of papers supporting the proposition that global warming is occuring, and is anthropogenic, I will be duly surprised and withdraw my skepticism of the AEI and their motives. I will also do that if the honorarium goes to a scientist who publishes research supporting the IPCC's position.
I find my contention no less surprising than if (say) Greenpeace were to fund studies to attempt to link the recent rise in global temperatures to man-made carbon emissions.
My problem is not that the AEI is funding studies that support their ideological cause. It is the disingenuousness.
"Shocked, shocked there is gambling on in this establishment!"
Should I read that as a NO then. ;-) Are you are merely casting aspirations without any evidence?
Tob
list of papers funded by the AEI
Otherwise, their point is to undermine the IPCC - which is fine, so long as they are honest about it. Lies are unbecoming... and if you/AEI are lying about this, how can I possibly trust the AEI or its method of selecting which research to fund?
Tob
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."
"In these letters AEI was certainly seeking out prominent analysts willing to participate in a critical examination of the IPCC report,"
The difference is the term "undermine" compared with "critically examine". Science is based upon critically examining all claims by scientists. Why would or should an international political group like
IPCC be immune from this examination?
The assumption that a critical examination of the IPCC
report will undermine it is probably the most damning statement in the whole juxtaposition. Especially since the actual letter (or proposal) simply asks the scientists to examine the strengths and weaknesses of the data - what do we know and what do we not know.
Very interesting that so many people seem to think that
information could be damning for the IPCC.
In response to Loki13's request: "If the president simply acknowledges that humans are probably causing some climate change, that warming will likely continue, and that warming might pose serious challenges for human societies and ecosystems, his epiphany will be a bit late, but at least reasonable. Whether liberal or conservative, thoughtful analysts have recognized this for over a decade now." -- Kenneth Green, AEI Environmental Policy Outlook, October 2006
NB that this is the same Kenneth Green who is the AEI scholar mentioned in the Guardian story. Other AEI scholars may disagree with Green. This isn't my specialty, and AEI doesn't have a party line (cf. Leon Kass v. Sally Satel on opposite sides of the question of maximizing organ donations) so I don't keep track of every single scholar's opinions.
With respect to carbon policy, I'll note for extra-full disclosure that not only do I work at AEI (albeit at a fraction of the pay I could make in the private sector), I drive a Toyota Prius about 5000 miles/year on the occasions that I do not take the Metro, I live in a high-rise, and that I support a revenue-neutral $17/ton carbon tax, a proposal I first heard about through another proponent, AEI fellow David Frum. I don't think any of this needs to be disclosed, and none of it is relevant to the fact that the Guardian story and the criticisms of AEI in this thread are hooey.
I'm skeptical of AEI because I've read enough work by climate change skeptics to know that most of it is garbage. Maybe the AEI is different, and I'll be happy to change my opinion of them if they demonstrate that based on their funding.
Second, the real issue is that the radical right in the US is very effective in funding people who agree with them. Pajama Media is a wonderful example. Does anyone want to pretend that it is worth what was paid to establish it? How about Regnery Books? How many of those best sellers are supported by bulk purchase?
Third, how much do you think the IPCC pays its contributing scientists?
I believe that in 1988 James Hansen predicted that the sea level would increase by 2 feet in 20 years. How much do sea levels need to rise next year for his prediction to come true?
What does the new study say about the Medieval warming period?
For what it's worth here's what Swiss researchers at the Jungfraujoch say about Alpine glaciers:
"During Roman times the glacier tongues were located at least 300 m higher than they are now."
"Around 1850 the Alpine glaciers reached their greatest extension since the last Ice Age. Evidence of this 'mini-Ice Age' can be seen in the fresh, steep moraine ridges which surround all our Alpine glaciers."
"The postglacial period -- the last 10,000 years -- has been marked by five climatic cycles. Each lasted 2,000 years with rapid changes from colder to warmer or warmer to colder weather."
In other words, climate change probably has natural causes.
The commissioned papers should stand or fall on their eventual merits, which are logically independent of the circumstances of their genesis. It should likewise be remembered, when they are finally published and presented, that the mere fact of their issuance is not, by itself, substantial evidence of scientific uncertainty on climate change. This kind of issue cannot be resolved, or treated as unresolved, based on simple head-counts -- especially not when well-funded organizations with broader social agendas have been funding a GOTV effort.
Personally, I think the issue is already well-enough resolved to applaud Ted for driving a Prius. Maybe somebody could please fund some research on how to get more people to drive 'em.
P.S. I have no affiliation with Toyota. Ted, if you do, you had better mention it pronto.
Mr Nordberg is of course quite right. Blustering from the likes of "viscus" is simply a transparent attempt at shutting off criticism of the IPCC findings by means of smearing the source from which it is issued. The irony is that "viscus" rants against agendas and prejudged criticism, oblivious to the fact that he's prejudging the AEI solicited critique himself.
Hypocritical much?
If this was a right wing foundation it would be villified as a bribe.
Emphasis added.
It has become something of an addiction for the Left. I almost never see them meet arguments with arguments anymore. Instead, reach for the mud, the smear, the attack on secret "motives," the caricature, and viola! No need to rebut your opponent, just destroy him. The idea is to close down debate by making one party to the debate radioactive. Once you've done that, you are free to ignore his "facts."
Do you need to rebut Pres. Bush? Hell no! Just make fun of him, and call him "stupid." Present a plan for Iraq? Heavens no! Just denounce the motives of anyone who has a plan, and ridicule everything as a failure! It's all for Halliburton!! Listen to Dick Cheney, and respond to his analysis of anything? Are you kidding? He's Darth Vader!! Ha,ha. Address the concerns of both sides in the Global Warming debate? Of course not! They're "holocaust deniers!!" Abortion? Religious crazies!! Tax rates? Greedy rich people!!! AEI's research on any topic? They're whores for ExxonMobil... or was it Halliburton? No, ummm they suck big Pharma's teat!! And Republicans!! They blow them!!
This approach has the added benefit of not forcing the Left to actually propose a solution to anything. Only that they oppose-- with every fiber of their heroic beings-- those evil neo-con men of the Right.
No doubt I will get flamed for this post. Tough. But mark my words, the Democrats and their allies in the media are creating a monster. One that they will not easily control. You cheapen the public discourse at your own peril. In the not too distant future it will be literally impossible to have a rational discussion about any public policy. What a glorious day that will be, huh.
(And yes, I am aware that some on the R side of the spectrum are equally guilty of all the sins I enumerate above. It is just that it is not nearly as wide spread. I mean, demeaning the intelligence of President Bush is practically a cottage industry. It is the knee-jerk response to every argument put forth by the man.)
But all that aside, what I really am wondering--and I apologize for going off topic here--is why this 1 percent doctrine idea only applies things like terrorism and not things like massive climate change?
That said, the following comment is a very succinct summary of what is wrong with many of the criticims levied in this thread:
When you are willing to distort the truth for money, you are an intellectual whore. When you are paid to search for the undistorted truth, and you pursue that truth relentlessly, regardless of whose agenda it may or may not advance, then you are a true scholar, worth of respect and esteem.
A minute ago we were talking about science. If truth is your objective, you would better serve your time in religion or philosophy. Science is not qualified to determine what truth is. Science can declare the best-understood state of things now, which may approach 'truth' in the colloquial sense, but it cannot give me an explanation that stands objectively and outside of revision, and thus has nothing to contribute towards "distorted" or "undistorted" truth.
Second, science gives me facts, and interpretations that attempt to best understand those facts. None of these preclude a challenge of existing facts -- by other interpretations, or the discovery of new facts -- that may weaken or even overturn the existing interpretations. AEI appears to be soliciting exactly that kind of challenge, and without a clear demonstration that they are doing something else, good faith demands that one should wait and see what kind of result is produced. Juvenile rhetoric and slander, especially before-the-fact, contribute nothing to the debate save for a distasteful revelation of the asserting party's character flaws.
Third, the idea of the 'noble scientist' as being an objective fact seeker who is free from bias, is very nice in theory and virtually non-existent in practice. (Persuant to point 1 above, I might add that if this concept is the basis of anyone's religion, find a better one). Scientists are as human as the rest of us; people of all occupations, science and otherwise, are prone to a number of known and demonstrable flaws. They may fail to observe results that fall outside of their training and/or expectations; 'groupthink' effects cannot be completely excluded, particularly in occupations where specialization of knowledge forces a narrow focus; and perhaps most importantly, it is impossible to perform any science at all if you do not have foundational expectations on which to premise your experiments.
Notice how all of this is possible without assuming anything whatsoever regarding scientist's motives; it just happens wherever humans are involved. The best solution within human limitations is to solicit as much science as possible, not determine which science is 'truth' and then write off the naysayers as cranks.
Finally, since scientists are known to find food and shelter as munificient to themselves as it is the rest of us, I really don't care where they get their money -- whether from honorariums distributed as compensation for time and travel, or as universtiy research grants distributed by commercial industry or by the Foundation For Socliciting Results Like This Please. The delivered results are capable of speaking for themselves.
Which leaves one glaring question: Why do some seem to be afraid of what might turn up in those results?
“You know, godfodder,for a long time the tobacco industry funded studies and interest groups and scientists to promote uncertainty into the debate over a causal link …”
Do you know who R.A. Fisher was? Or Joseph Berkson? Fisher is founder of modern statistics including the important principles of experimental design and randomization. He is perhaps the most important statistician of the 20th Century. Berkson was chief of medical statistics at the Mayo Clinic and was trained as both a doctor and a mathematical statistician. He served on the statistics committee of the American Cancer Society.
Both Fisher and Berkson (who often disagreed about subjects statistical) were critical of any link between tobacco smoking and cancer. In the late 1950s they pointed out weaknesses in the evidence, even evidence from prospective studies. Of course now we know there is link because we have the benefit of more than 50 years of additional data, experiments and research. Nevertheless both Fisher and Berkson had objections at the time that were based on sound scientific reasoning. On the other hand, the National Socialists in Germany were way ahead of their time because they opposed smoking and had a campaign to stamp it out. (See the “Statistics, Scientific Method and Smoking,” by B. W. Brown Jr. in the book, Statistics: A Guide to the Unknown edited by Tanur and Mosteller.)
The important lesson we should take away from the history of science is you never know who is going to turn out to be right. You do the best science you can at the time and invite critical study. The advocates of climate change don’t seem to like critical review.
Animadversions about AEI are completely off-target. Truth is the object, and owes nothing to its source.
It seems that the right (and you) are not free from "ad institutiem" attacks either.
I can't speak as to CAP but, in my case, as in David Frum's, not once has anyone "ever breathed a word to me suggesting that I should take this side or that of a particular debate." So I don't view myself as shilling: I've sponsored and organized (or helped to organize) AEI panels that showcased interesting papers or books I disagreed with, including one headlined by Eugene Volokh himself, and the vast majority of panels I've spoken on or moderated at AEI featured representatives from the opposite side of the position I was taking.
Tomorrow evening, Leon Kass is going to speak at AEI; I'm going to attend and, in the question-and-answer period, challenge his premises about "repugnance" as a grounds for public policy by contrasting his recent support of Kant with Kass's earlier book on Genesis, and I fear no repercussions for doing so.
AEI is a top-notch academic institution without political correctness requirements, and has the additional benefit that I don't have to spend time grading papers. What's not to find fulfilling?
“The world’s leading climate scientists on Friday swept away the last doubts surrounding global warming, saying they were certain human activities were altering the climate…”
“The evidence for climate change caused by fossil fuel combustion was “unequivocal”, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,…”
“Yvo de Boer, secretary-general of the UN climate change secretariat, said work should now begin on a successor treaty to Kyoto that would include obligations on developed countries to cut carbon dioxide emissions and incentives for poor countries to limit theirs.”
Note that poor countries (China?, India?) are not obligated, only given incentives. Note also every statement is dogmatic. How can they know what doubts remain with the science part held back, so all you can read is the executive summary? BTW the authors were instructed to make sure the content of the report does not contradict the summary.
I don't know if I follow.
Wouldn't an unrestricted award be consistent with a bribe? If you are funding real research, then you might restrict the award to ensure that it is properly spent. If you are paying someone off, you would want to keep the reward unrestriced, correct?
Sorry, can't do that. AEI is a hack outfit, not a serious research institute. That their roster of "scholars and fellows" includes such names as Charles Murray and Michael Ledeen, and until recently included John Lott, is all the evidence one needs to rationally reach that conclusion. Why do I say that? Because of the atrocious quality of the "research" produced by the likes of Mssrs. Ledeen, Lott and Murray. That AEI is willing to publish their junk shows that AEI has absolutely no meaningful scholarly standards.
Now, it may be the case, as the AEI's Mr. Frank contends, that on a few occasions there will be some internal debate within AEI on a handful of issues. It may be the case that on rare occasions, some AEI "scholar" may publish something that would potentially qualify for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. A handful of exceptions do not require me to modify my conclusion that AEI is a hack institution.
And one is entitled to question the motives of a hack outfit at any time.
And, once again, I note the irony of an anonymous commenter complaining about secret unrevealed motivations of others.
How so, Ted? Please clarify this as it's far from the obvious point you seem to think it is.
And Ted, Mark is in fact my name.
If we wanted to document all the instances of studies funded by unbiased groups, we could go on for years. For example, the teachers' unions routinely fund studies that always tend to show that hiring more public school teachers and paying them more improves educational performance while vouchers and charter schools are worthless. (Surprising, no?) Why does the AEI warrant any more scrutiny?
For those of you enraged at the AEI, I would make two points:
1) The IPCC's budget is indisputably much, much larger than the $10,000 that the AEI is offering.
2) If the IPCC's conclusions can be undermined by a $10,000 study...well...
unbiased groups.""Sorry, can't do that. AEI is a hack outfit, not a serious research institute. That their roster of "scholars and fellows" includes such names as Charles Murray ..."
How is (say) Charles Murray a “hack?” Give me a specific example, not just an insult or appeal to authority. Now had you picked James K. Glassman of the “Dow 36,000” theory I might agree that he is hack. But I say that for specific technical reasons. He misapplied the Gordon Dividend Discount Model, and he confused earnings growth with dividend growth to name but a few of many problems. But do we condemn the whole of AEI because one or a few staff members have done poor work? By that standard I can condemn Stanford University because of Paul Ehrlich who published The Population Bomb, which predicted that in the 1970s the world would experience massive famines. He predicted that life expectancy in the US would drop to 42 years by 1980 and its population would drop to 22 million by 1999! He also said the UK would probably not exist in the year 2000. How’s that for a hack? How come Stanford hasn’t fired him for gross negligence? Moreover like Glassman he is unrepentant.
This does seem to be a bit less of a scandal than I'd originally heard about. Anything sponsored by the United Nations has no credibility to start with. "Research" that comes out of an ideological thinktank, corporation, advocacy group, or political campaign is nonevidence. There is no point in analyzing such "studies" on the merits; they should all go in the circular file.
Nick
I suppose a few months ago he was a wise scientist, but now he must be a loony leftist, right? But he says the only reason he changed position was because he was convinced of the science, which is what so many doubters keep harping on.
If the doubting scientists can look at the data and find that there is indeed climate change, why do so many people continue to say there is nothing there, that is 'a farce', as one person put it? The only way to continue to deny such reality is to say that the person you relied on a few months ago is now unreliable, with no explanation as to why.
Or, he was a hack denier and is now a wise scientist. Pick your poison.
Tob
Not only is it not "thoroughly erroneous", it is utterly expected of scientists NOT to take things on trust. Your argument, if it applies at all, applies only to the average reader - not the scientific community at large. Or are you claiming that the scientific community would find an AEI rejoinder "too complex" to understand?
Do keep up.
Are you really unaware of, just for example, the numerous book-length critiques published in response to The Bell Curve, which totally demolished Murray's reasoning and conclusions? Of the equally devastating critiques, way back in the 1980's, of Murray's Losing Ground?
But do we condemn the whole of AEI because one or a few staff members have done poor work?
It's not just "one or a few" cases, it's a sizable fraction of the work that AEI publishes--so much that it's impossible to believe that they have any sort of neutral, scholarly standards for what gets published.
As to your argument about Paul Ehrlich, the proper comparsion should be between AEI and academic journals or publshers. If an academic journal published, over a period of years, the same proportion of genuinely poor research as does AEI, their reputation would be in tatters.
This is no doubt true, but all it means that ad hominem evaluations have some utility as a time-saving filtering device for those who lack the time or ability to evaluate the substance of a claim. It does not say anything at all about the truth or falsity of the claim. In other words, it does not establish that ad hominem arguments are valid arguments.
Put another way: While it may be reasonable in some contexts to say: "I trust information and arguments from X more than from Y because Y is [corrupt/bought/of the wrong ideology/etc.]", it is a logical fallacy to say "Y's argument is wrong" for the same reasons. The strength or weakness of Y's argument can be evaluated independently of Y's personal failings.
In the context of blog commentary, I think it reasonable to presume that those who rely upon ad hominem arguments do so because they lack the time, inclination or ability to mount more substantive critiques.
JHA
"Please clarify this as it's far from the obvious point you seem to think it is."
The point is obvious. Let him stew.
"And Ted, Mark is in fact my name."
Such insight.
advisory opinion: Exactly.
Justin: No one is being "expected to agree by trusting or distrusting the source." We're talking, presumably, about a scientific article forthcoming next Fall -- is there any reason to write it off now? Whatever limited place you might think ad hominem attacks have in discourse, I don't see how it can be here.
Well, one thing is for sure. If Ron Bailey thinks that there is global warming, Exxon certainly isn't getting its money's worth from Cato and the Reason Foundation.
Somehow I find categorical pronouncements on logical fallacies from persons who can't even spell the name of the fallacy in question correctly, unpersuasive. Is that allowed, Justin? After all, calling it an "ab hominen [sic]" is quite the spectacular gaffe.
MarkW, I respectfully disagree. AEI is a think-tank, and it should be compared to other think-tanks.
If you compare AEI to other think-tanks, then AEI is one of the most intellectually honest in my opinion. However, based on my experience, Brookings sets the standard for intellectual honesty.
The context in which I made that point was in response to a specific comparison between think tank researchers and a university researcher; as I was addressing the quality of AEI as a publisher of research, academic publishers were the appropriate analogy.
I tend to evaluate and compare think tanks based on what I perceive to be the quality of their research; I'd name Brookings, Rand and the Urban Institute as the standard-setters.
“Are you really unaware of, just for example, the numerous book-length critiques published in response to The Bell Curve, which totally demolished Murray's reasoning and conclusions? Of the equally devastating critiques, way back in the 1980's, of Murray's Losing Ground?”
I am aware that Murray’s publications are controversial. I’m also aware that 52 professors working in psychometrics and related fields signed a published statement in support of the conclusions in The Bell Curve including: Arthur Jensen, Garrett Hardin, Nadine Lambert and Vincent Sarich at UC Berkeley. Do think these professors are “hacks?”
But you didn’t answer the question, which was to avoid an appeal to authority and tell me exactly where Murray is wrong to such a degree as to make him a “hack?”
I don’t have Losing Ground, but I do have The Bell Curve, so tell me what in The Bell Curve is egregiously incorrect? For example here are the main arguments in the book.
1. Intelligence exists and is accurately measureable across racial, language, and national boundaries.
2. Intelligence is one, if not the most, important correlative factor in economic, social, and overall success in America, and is becoming more important.
3. Intelligence is largely (40% to 80%) genetically heritable.
4. There are racial and ethnic differences in IQ that cannot be entirely be explained by environmental factors such as nutrition, social policy, or racism.
5. No one has so far been able to manipulate IQ long term to any significant degree through changes in environmental factors, and in light of their failure such approaches are becoming less promising.
6. The USA has been in denial regarding these facts, and in light of these findings a better public understanding of the nature of intelligence and its social correlates is necessary to guide future policy decisions in America.
Do you assert all these conclusions are incorrect? If so why do you believe that, what is your evidence?
Man-Made Global Warming: extremely dubious.
Man-Made Global Warming cured by international bureaucrats: an impossibility.
Global Warming as an opportunity to tax, regulate, employ Kofi Anan's nephews, erode national sovereignty, boss people around and place governments even farther from citizen control: a certainty.
Chances it will matter much if madmen continue to get nukes?
I think Rand and the Urban Institute get the majority of their funding from the government. That causes them to play things "close to the vest." I tend to put them into a different group than AEI and Brookings.
I'd take it as a request for work that's largely outside the scope of my scientific research. Whether I accepted the funding would depend on a few factors: Do I have anything to say about policy issues? If so, do I want my views associated with the AEI? Can I draw a bright line between my research and my policy views? In the end, I think that the paper would turn out to be more of an op-ed than anything else, and I have nothing against op-eds, as long as everyone recognizes them as such and doesn't confuse them with science.
There's one ambiguous point that I may have missed the answer on, and it would affect my view of this situation: Is AEI giving the honorarium upfront or after they see the paper? I wouldn't touch the latter arrangement.
For an introduction to the myriad shortcomings of The Bell Curve, check out the reading list Ezra Klein put together in the wake of Murray's recent series in the WSJ here:
The Slate article by Nick Lemann is particularly good.
Also, if you've access to a good university library, check out James Heckman's review of The Bell Curve in the Octover 1995 Journal of Political Economy. I think you'll find that Heckman explicitly challenges several of the "main arguments" you find so persuasive.
Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/yrlhqk
We have dueling authorities here. I don’t know why your authorities are better than my authorities; in fact they seem much worse. Ezra Klein is a recent graduate of UCLA in political science, what makes him any kind of authority on psychometrics? James Heckman is an economist; again psychometrics is out of his field. Compare and contrast to the authorities I cited like Arthur Jensen who has spend his entire career researching psychometrics in general an intelligence in particular. He is the author of a major textbook in this field The g Factor. Surely his and the other professors I gave carry more weight then people outside the field.
But you still haven’t told me why you believe The Bell Curve is Wrong. Why you think Jensen is wrong and Heckman is right?
I read Erza Klein’s article. He presents no new arguments and little in the way of evidence. We are dealing with a controversial topic, and not surprisingly if we do a broad sweep of the world we will find a smattering of contrary opinions mostly from people outside the field of psychometrics. He refers to an article in Cognitive Daily. But that article was about Murray’s Wall Street Journal Articles not The Bell Curve and was written by Dave Munger who is not a psychometrican. Moreover that’s just one article, any regular reader of Cognitive Daily would know that many, if not most of their articles would support Murray’s conclusions in The Bell Curve.
Zarkov, you demand "a specific example, not just an insult or appeal to authority" in mark's refutation of the bell curve. Mark gives you specific examples. Your defense from these examples is basically "those people aren't psychometricians therefore their critics don't matter". You then go on to say that "most psychometricians agree with the bell curve" which is little more than a vague and unsubstantiated appeal to authority.
What, if anything, would you consider a serious critique of the bell curve?
Mark did not give arguments-- he gave me authorities. For completeness I gave some counter authorities. But he has the burden of proof because he claims Murray is a hack based on the methods and conclusions in The Bell Curve. I want to know what conclusions are wrong. I did not make a vague appeal to authority because I provided a specific list of the professors who signed a public statement supporting the The Bell Curve. How is that vague? The web page with the list of professors also provides arguments supporting the Bell Curve. But let’s forget about authorities. Take the list of conclusions and tell me which are wrong and why and we will go from there. If you don’t like the list give me another conclusion and tell me why it’s wrong. When you call someone a hack you should be prepared to say where and why his work is defective. When I said Glassman’s Dow 36,000 is defective I provided reasons. I didn’t just say so and so thinks its defective.
Murray provides all the data he used for the book on his web page. That’s rare. Very few people give you enough data to in principle repeat their calculations. I haven’t seen anyone correct his calculations.
“What, if anything, would you consider a serious critique of the bell curve?”
I’m supposed to argue with myself? The peo