Nate Silver Is Having an Ezra Klein Moment

FiveThirtyEight hasn’t hired a global-warming denier, but Silver’s new writer has fully flunked the green purity test.

National Journal
Ben Geman
March 20, 2014, 1:20 p.m.

A wun­der­kind journ­al­ist leaves a huge news­pa­per, starts a highly an­ti­cip­ated ex­plan­at­ory re­port­ing pro­ject — and promptly gets bashed on the left for hir­ing a con­tro­ver­sial writer.

But this isn’t a story about former Wash­ing­ton Post journ­al­ist Ezra Klein, who earli­er this month risked es­tranging fans by hir­ing Brandon Am­brosino — au­thor of sev­er­al pieces that en­raged mem­bers of the LGBT com­munity — as a writ­ing fel­low at his Vox Me­dia ven­ture.

This week it’s former New York Times data journ­al­ism wiz Nate Sil­ver, founder of the newly launched Fiv­eThirtyEight.com, who is un­der fire. Act­iv­ists and at least one high-pro­file cli­mate sci­ent­ist are tak­ing aim at Sil­ver’s de­cision to add Uni­versity of Col­or­ado en­vir­on­ment­al stud­ies pro­fess­or Ro­ger Pielke Jr. as a con­trib­ut­ing writer.

That’s an un­fa­mil­i­ar space for Sil­ver, whom sci­ent­ists have gen­er­ally held in high­er es­teem for his brand of data-driv­en journ­al­ism than for the “he said, she said” cov­er­age of the cli­mate-sci­ence “de­bate.”

But this isn’t just an­oth­er entry in­to the sci­entif­ic con­sensus vs. glob­al-warm­ing den­iers chron­icles. This battle — much like Pielke’s take on cli­mate — is far more nu­anced.

Pielke, a polit­ic­al sci­ent­ist with a Ph.D., doesn’t deny hu­man-in­duced cli­mate change. He says it’s real and de­mands ac­tion.

But he has of­ten tussled with some prom­in­ent cli­mate sci­ent­ists and left-lean­ing policy ad­voc­ates on sev­er­al fronts, and there are reas­ons why it’s the Re­pub­lic­ans who in­vite him as a wit­ness at cli­mate-change hear­ings.

One front: He al­leges some ad­voc­ates, in­clud­ing Pres­id­ent Obama’s sci­ence ad­viser John Hold­ren, have gone too far in claim­ing cli­mate change has worsened ex­treme weath­er events like hur­ricanes and severe droughts, or in­creased their fre­quency.

Hold­ren re­cently took the un­usu­al step of cri­ti­ciz­ing Pielke dir­ectly in a memo about links between drought and cli­mate change, which was part of a wider thrust-and-parry between them (Hold­ren’s memo is here, Pielke’s re­sponse is here).

Pielke ar­gues that his real sin is flunk­ing a pur­ity test among cli­mate sci­ent­ists and ad­voc­ates that he calls coun­ter­pro­duct­ive.

“I see my views on cli­mate change de­vi­at­ing in small but sig­ni­fic­ant ways from, ba­sic­ally, the main­stream view, which makes the vit­ri­ol so much more dis­turb­ing,” he said, ar­guing that a di­versity of ideas is needed to con­front cli­mate change. “There is a small but vo­cal con­tin­gent that ba­sic­ally brokers no dis­sent, and I am very em­phat­ic that if ac­tion on cli­mate change is go­ing to sur­vive polit­ic­ally over dec­ades, that those call­ing for ac­tion have to hold them­selves to the ut­most of sci­entif­ic stand­ards.”

Pielke has cri­ti­cized the cli­mate move­ment for pur­su­ing what he ar­gues are polit­ic­ally im­prac­tic­al and in­ef­fect­ive solu­tions. For in­stance, he calls the cam­paign against the Key­stone pipeline “mis­guided” and is skep­tic­al of the polit­ic­al vi­ab­il­ity of ef­forts to put a sub­stan­tial price on car­bon.

He’s af­fil­i­ated with the Break­through In­sti­tute, a con­trari­an en­vir­on­ment­al think tank whose founders have spent a dec­ade telling oth­er en­vir­on­ment­al­ists that they’re do­ing it wrong for one reas­on or an­oth­er.

Pielke’s first piece in Fiv­eThirtyEight on Wed­nes­day ar­gues that in­creas­ing costs of weath­er-re­lated dis­asters like ma­jor hur­ricanes stem from rising glob­al wealth — not cli­mate change. “We’re see­ing ever-lar­ger losses simply be­cause we have more to lose — when an earth­quake or flood oc­curs, more stuff gets dam­aged,” he writes.

Though Pielke doesn’t deny glob­al warm­ing, his de­vi­ations from oth­ers in the move­ment hasn’t won him him many act­iv­ist friends — and they’ve not been shy in send­ing Sil­ver that mes­sage.

“It seems like wherever cli­mate sci­ence is, Ro­ger Pielke is there say­ing that it’s wrong in some way,” said Miles Grant, a seni­or com­mu­nic­a­tions of­fi­cial with the Na­tion­al Wild­life Fed­er­a­tion. “With friends like these, who needs the Koch broth­ers.”

“Pielke routinely seeks to min­im­ize the im­pacts and sever­ity of cli­mate change and in the pro­cess, has been re­peatedly cri­ti­cized as in­ac­cur­ate and mis­lead­ing by some of the na­tion’s top cli­mate sci­ent­ists,” states a post Wed­nes­day on Cli­mate­Pro­gress, a blog run by the lib­er­al Cen­ter for Amer­ic­an Pro­gress Ac­tion Fund.

And that was just the first of two anti-Pielke stor­ies Cli­mate­Pro­gress ran on Wed­nes­day. A second quoted sev­er­al cli­mate re­search­ers cri­ti­ciz­ing Pielke’s first piece for Sil­ver’s site (the item was also up­dated with a re­but­tal from Pielke).

Penn State’s Mi­chael Mann, one of the world’s most prom­in­ent cli­mate sci­ent­ists, has joined the fray, knock­ing both Pielke and Sil­ver’s de­cision to hire him. And sev­er­al cli­mate act­iv­ists have been at­tack­ing the Pielke hire on Twit­ter too.

For Klein, Sil­ver’s scen­ario is all-too-fa­mil­i­ar.

After hir­ing Am­brosino, Klein was ripped by groups — in­clud­ing Me­dia Mat­ters — that had pre­vi­ously praised Klein’s data-driv­en work at the Wash­ing­ton Post‘s Wonkblog. But those groups ar­gued that by hir­ing Am­brosino (who is openly gay), Klein was sac­ri­fi­cing that stand­ard, of­fer­ing a plat­form to an au­thor whose pieces were widely re­garded as in­flam­mat­ory at­tempts for at­ten­tion rather than ef­forts to provide in­sight.

In de­fend­ing the hire, Klein said Am­brosino would be writ­ing about a range of is­sues bey­ond gender and sexu­al­ity — and said that all of this work would be ed­ited to meet Vox’s stand­ard for fair­ness, ac­cur­acy, and qual­ity.

Sil­ver en­joys a sim­il­ar (if not more ster­ling) repu­ta­tion as an hon­est broker when it comes time to crunch — or mod­el — the num­bers, and those as­sur­ances could pro­tect the brand as a whole, even among those who find Pielke him­self tough to stom­ach.

And as Pielke’s first post demon­strates, the con­tro­versy over his hire will do noth­ing to scare him off writ­ing about cli­mate, nor will it lim­it his sub­ject mat­ter.

Pielke’s said his next story will be about eval­u­at­ing pre­dic­tions. But not, he said, pre­dic­tions about cli­mate change.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
2 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
2 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
ARE YOU THE GATEKEEPER?
Sanders: Obama Is a Progressive
1 days ago
THE LATEST

“Do I think President Obama is a progressive? Yeah, I do,” said Bernie Sanders, in response to a direct question in tonight’s debate. “I think they’ve done a great job.” But Hillary Clinton wasn’t content to sit out the latest chapter in the great debate over the definition of progressivism. “In your definition, with you being the gatekeeper of progressivism, I don’t think anyone else fits that definition,” she told Sanders.

×