Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight has posted a rebuttal by MIT scientist Kerry Emanuel to Roger Pielke Jr.’s controversial March 19 story that argued climate change isn’t to blame for the rising costs of weather-related disasters.
“I don’t see how the data he cites support such a confident assertion,” Emanuel writes in the response that Silver commissioned to run on the data-journalism site. (Click here to read more about why Emanuel’s not buying Pielke’s argument.)
Emanuel’s post followed a note to readers Friday from Silver himself, who said the largely negative response to Pielke’s item prompted FiveThirtyEight to “think carefully” about the story and their editing.
“The back-and-forth is extremely detailed, citing paper upon paper, footnote upon footnote, and link upon link. The debate is hard for us to adjudicate without turning to experts for help,” Silver writes in explaining why he commissioned a story that responds to the central arguments of Pielke’s story.
Silver also said there were some “peripheral claims” allowed into Pielke’s piece and some other problems that “reflect a poor job of editing on our part.”
But the note says that broader criticisms of Pielke — namely that the political scientist isn’t qualified to write on climate and that he’s a climate “denier” — are “unfair.”
As National Journal wrote here, Pielke often enrages climate activists and has drawn criticism from several prominent scientists, although he does not dispute human-induced climate change and says it demands action.
Emanuel’s piece is just the latest chapter in the brouhaha over Pielke’s item and FiveThirtyEight‘s decision to bring him on as a contributor.
Huffington Post media writer Michael Calderone reported Friday that FiveThirtyEight apologized to scientists Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth for emails Pielke sent them in response to their criticism of his March 19 item.
HuffPo reported that Mann and Trenberth interpret Pielke’s emails as threatening possible legal action. But Pielke told Calderone that it’s “ridiculous” to characterize the emails that way.
What We're Following See More »
Paul Ryan told CNN today he's "not ready" to back Donald Trump at this time. "I'm not there right now," he said. Ryan said Trump needs to unify "all wings of the Republican Party and the conservative movement" and then run a campaign that will allow Americans to "have something that they're proud to support and proud to be a part of. And we've got a ways to go from here to there."
In The New Yorker, Jeffrey Toobin gives Preet Bharara, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the longread treatment. The scourge of corrupt New York pols, bad actors on Wall Street, and New York gang members, Bharara learned at the foot of Chuck Schumer, the famously limelight-hogging senator whom he served as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee staff. No surprise then, that after President Obama appointed him, Bharara "brought a media-friendly approach to what has historically been a closed and guarded institution. In professional background, Bharara resembles his predecessors; in style, he’s very different. His personality reflects his dual life in New York’s political and legal firmament. A longtime prosecutor, he sometimes acts like a budding pol; his rhetoric leans more toward the wisecrack than toward the jeremiad. He expresses himself in the orderly paragraphs of a former high-school debater, but with deft comic timing and a gift for shtick."
President Obama has announced another round of commutations of prison sentences. Most of the 58 individuals named are incarcerated for possessions with intent to distribute controlled substances. The prisoners will be released between later this year and 2018.
The Daily Beast has unearthed a piece that Donald Trump wrote for Gear magazine in 2000, which anticipates his 2016 sales pitch quite well. "Perhaps it's time for a dealmaker who can get the leaders of Congress to the table, forge consensus, and strike compromise," he writes. Oddly, he opens by defending his reputation as a womanizer: "The hypocrites argue that a man who loves and appreciates beautiful women (and does so legally and openly) shouldn't become a national leader? Is there something wrong with appreciating beautiful women? Don't we want people in public office who show signs of life?"