On admitting errors, and science versus politics
The news of the past few weeks is rife with gaffes and blunders for which some ducked the issue and refused to acknowledge or apologize for the error. In reviewing these, I discovered they are linked in strange ways.
Esteemed columnist and TV host Fareed Zakaria inadvertently lifted a couple of paragraphs from another writer and inserted them in his column, a breech of ethics for which he is currently on a one-month suspension from Time magazine and CNN.
To his credit, he immediately took full responsibility for the error and apologized. How refreshing.
Unlike the transgressions of journalists who knowingly invented sources to further an agenda or to punch up dull copy, Zakaria’s error was one that most reporters and columnists have occasionally made or narrowly avoided. It happens when researching on the Internet; one copies and pastes a paragraph in haste, fully intending to rewrite or attribute, and later in the crush of deadline pressure one forgets.
Then there were reversals of position taken by scientists on the matter of climate change and its probable cause. When a politician does this it’s scorned as a flip-flop and offending candidates do their best to distance themselves from earlier positions no longer deemed acceptable. Scientists are allowed more flexibility, to alter their views based on new information.
In this case, Richard A. Muller, U.C. Berkeley physics professor and long-standing climate-change skeptic, reversed course and, after several years of intense research, says he now accepts global warming as clear and almost entirely caused by human emission of greenhouse gases. In a New York Times opinion piece, Muller wrote: “My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.” The kicker is that project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which has backed primarily groups that deny climate change.
In explaining his earlier views, or maybe as a nod to Koch, Muller wrote, “It’s a scientist’s duty to be properly skeptical and much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I’ve analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism about them hasn’t changed.”
He also says that intense weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts, cannot be blamed on global warming. However, this directly opposes a recent study by NASA scientist Dr. James E. Hansen, who claims soaring temperatures and drought are not random or normal but are pure global warming. His study, published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, says the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now the odds are closer to 1 in 10.
In a piece for Time magazine, Bryan Walsh noted that meteorologists call drought the “creeping disaster,” because unlike hurricanes or tornadoes, they normally unfold in slow motion. This year, it’s called a “flash drought,” the driest year in recent memory with record high temperatures. July was the hottest month ever recorded in the U.S., and the corn crop has been devastated as 88 percent is grown in drought-affected areas.
The U.S. House of Representatives adjourned last week without renewing the Farm Bill, which is due to expire the end of September. Members did agree to extend one year of disaster relief to beef and sheep producers, but not for pork or poultry farmers.
Meanwhile, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney (not one to admit errors) announced last weekend Congressman Paul Ryan as his pick for vice-presidential running mate. Ryan, who chairs the House Budget Committee and has served seven terms, is considered the ultimate Washington insider. As a candidate, Romney has revisited several positions he espoused as Massachusetts governor, no apology given or explained. But Ryan, a vehement climate-change denier, could prove unwilling to yield to political pressure or scientific consensus.
Conservatives may find this appealing, a complement to Romney’s more moderate leanings. Independents and moderates could balk at Ryan’s voting record (supporting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Medicare Part D, all of which were off budget and thus added to the national debt).
In a joint interview by Bob Schaeffer that aired on “60 Minutes” Sunday, Romney distanced himself from Ryan’s published budget plan, saying: “I have my budget plan and that’s the budget plan we’re going to run on.” Did we hear a collective sigh of relief?
It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out.