I can't quite reconcile your definitive statement "It is, in a word, misinformation.2" with the points you made in Stone of Madness. While I understand that your main criticism there was directed toward the misinfo-studies efforts (and particularly those focused on tackling misinfo), you also seemed to question the meaningfulness of the term "misinformation". For example, you write
"A 2023 survey of misinformation researchers offered little further help in defining misinformation, explaining,
'the most popular definition of misinformation was “false and misleading information” '
That definition is about as useful as defining research misconduct as improper conduct in research — circular and empty."
What, then, is your own definition of misinformation when you state that NOAA has engaged in it?
Of course misinformation exists. However, contrary to some “misinformation” researchers I do not argue that I have some special ability to identify misinformation beyond subject matter expertise.
For instance, NOAA’s BDD tabulation is misinformation because of flaws in the methods and results, which you can independently verify on your own — not because I appeal to some consensus or my authority.
Similarly, you can see that the BDD is misinformation based on the data of the BDD, and not the characteristics of the data that you can be “inoculated” against.
I have invited NOAA to offer a counterargument to my claims, and offered to publish that here — so far they have declined.
Thanks Roger, I understand your points. I'm not sure we've come across or have the same view of misinfo researchers. I've not gotten the perception that there is such a big emphasis on special abilities beyond subject-matter expertise to identify it (though consensus and expert-authority are proxies for subject-matter expertise in other realms, e.g. policy-making). Though I understand your stance regarding some behaviorist approaches toward tackling misinfo (via 'innoculation').
The question still remains, what constitutes misinformation? And who decides what is and isn't misinformation, and who should we trust with determining that? Should we trust your statement that NOAA engages in misinfo (so that you'd be a NOAA-fact-checker of sorts)? Should we do this because of your authority? That you told us that you looked at the methods/results (this requires trust - an important dimension of course for the broader issue of politics, from personal to institutional level)? That the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (we both know how fraught the peer-review process can be)? Or, should we wait for another researcher or group to reproduce your work in npj Nat Haz before we take your conclusions as fact (my preference, though we both know that reproducibility studies are not incentivized), including that of the claim that NOAA engages in misinformation?
Given all these questions, does the misinformation label even serve a purpose, given that it's a contested term (not only in terms of definition, but the political divides it likely reflects in both definitions and strategies to tackle) and that we do not foresee any practical ways in which we could rigorously apply the label (not least because of the political divides mentioned)?
These are all open questions, not expecting any definitive answers, just reflecting based on your writing, feel free to answer any or none. To be clear, I do think misinformation is an issue, and one that is causing increasing havoc. And I don't see any silver bullets in terms of tackling it, any means of getting to grips with it will necessitate compromises (which is likely to be informed by politics) and possible negative, and sometimes unexpected consequences (my intuition says the 'innoculation' approach could cause some of this).
The question still remains, what constitutes misinformation?
RESPONSE: In this case, NOAA’s BDD, it is information that fails to meet the agency’s standards for information quality and scientific integrity. And NOAA knows better.
And who decides what is and isn't misinformation, and who should we trust with determining that?
RESPONSE: In this case, NOAA has made it easy by providing standards of scientific integrity that are fairly objective.
Should we trust your statement that NOAA engages in misinfo (so that you'd be a NOAA-fact-checker of sorts)?
RESPONSE: Definitely not! I’m made my case, supported it, and invited NOAA to respond. People should evaluate whether I’ve made my case or not.
Should we do this because of your authority?
RESPONSE: I’m not big on appeals to individual authority. That said, we need authoritative institutions (like NOAA) that we can trust if society is going to work. I trust NOAA’s weather forecasts without independent verification, because of their track record, which earns my trust in their authority.
That you told us that you looked at the methods/results (this requires trust - an important dimension of course for the broader issue of politics, from personal to institutional level)?
RESPONSE: This one is easy. Anyone can confirm my claims independently.
That the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (we both know how fraught the peer-review process can be)?
RESPONSE: No more than any peer reviewed paper — that is, it has passed some minimal quality control.
Or, should we wait for another researcher or group to reproduce your work in npj Nat Haz before we take your conclusions as fact (my preference, though we both know that reproducibility studies are not incentivized), including that of the claim that NOAA engages in misinformation?
REPONSE: No one need await further analyses - all claims and evidence are public record. This one is pretty simple.
Given all these questions, does the misinformation label even serve a purpose, given that it's a contested term (not only in terms of definition, but the political divides it likely reflects in both definitions and strategies to tackle) and that we do not foresee any practical ways in which we could rigorously apply the label (not least because of the political divides mentioned)?
RESPONSE: I generally agree. It is much more appropriate to identify misinformation in a specific context then to try to develop an overarching covering theory. Here at THB I challenge many claims, but with specifics and not based on some overarching theory of “misinformation.”
Thank you for the detailed response Roger - read on-the-fly at the time but didn't get a chance to respond.
Appreciate the answers and agreed on the specific-context aspect, including the use of specific/well-defined standards. Only thing I'm concerned is that the term misinfo will be abused and politicized to the extent that it will have little use, either by polarizing discussions from the get-go, getting bogged down on discussing definitions and 'benchmarking' instead of discussing substantive arguments (no criticism to you - obviously you're focusing on the latter).
What does the high-profile opportunity in the standfirst refer to? That the paper was published in "...npj Natural Hazards, a journal in the Nature family of journals"? If so, and you wish to make an oblique connection with the Nature journals, there's nothing high-profile about it as the so-called Nature-family of journals has zero in common editorially when it comes to selectivity and the corresponding editorial processes.
Roger, your criticism of NOAA's Billion Dollar annual reports is expressed very diplomatically. I first encountered one of these over a decade ago and it was obvious that population and development growth was an important but unstated factor influencing damage reports. Why has it taken so long for others to realize this? And why doesn't NOAA realize how these reports damage their brand?
Roger has some kind words for the work NOAA does but I'm reminded of Tom Karl's "pause buster" temperature record leading up to the Paris Accords where hull temperature records were used to "correct" the readings from what I think was the network of permanent buoys Pielke Sr. references in his paper. I never quite trusted them on climate matters after that. I can't recall if Roger ever commented on that.
I have invited Adam Smith of NOAA (who oversees the BDD tabulation) to respond, which I will publish here at THB
Smith's response does not need approval from political appointees or NOAA media folks
NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy explains:
"Covered individuals engaged in science and the development of scientific products may speak freely to the media and the public about scientific and technical ideas, approaches, findings, and conclusions based on their official work."
I'm guessing I'm like many THB subscribers in that I'm hoping THB is that rare entity without an overt (or covert) agenda to distort facts in support of a particular theology. I'm just trying to get as good a sense as I can for CO2 emissions and their consequences. Objectivity on climate, especially in the mainstream media, seems to be the scarcest commodity around.
Last night CNN commenced its "Violent Earth" series hosted by Liev Schrieber. The first episode was about tornadoes, and while it was not stated explicitly, I doubt it will surprise you that the series implied that tornados were getting more frequent and intense. In one of his brief cameos during the show, Schreiber mentioned a future episodes on wildfires, stat9ing that they were becoming more frequent and dangerous. I don't recall that he drew a straight line between climate change and wildfires, but to me the implied conection was clear.
I'm curious if any of your other subscribers saw the show and understood its perspective as I did.
Your analysis and position regarding NOAA behavior has been out there for some time now. I am surprised that there has been no public response from NOAA. Any non-public response that you can share? Ron
Good investigative reporting Roger. I enjoyed reading the entire paper, The number and scope of the unsupported NOAA claims is so great as to make me wonder if NOAA scientific integrity is even possible with the tens of trillions of dollars in funding and energy transition enterprise available by promoting climate catastrophe. It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be. Our democratic institutions are under siege by the Right and our science and free speech by the Left.
I believe it was Comrade Beria who said, “Show me the policy and I’ll show you the statistics.”
I can't quite reconcile your definitive statement "It is, in a word, misinformation.2" with the points you made in Stone of Madness. While I understand that your main criticism there was directed toward the misinfo-studies efforts (and particularly those focused on tackling misinfo), you also seemed to question the meaningfulness of the term "misinformation". For example, you write
"A 2023 survey of misinformation researchers offered little further help in defining misinformation, explaining,
'the most popular definition of misinformation was “false and misleading information” '
That definition is about as useful as defining research misconduct as improper conduct in research — circular and empty."
What, then, is your own definition of misinformation when you state that NOAA has engaged in it?
Good Q!
Of course misinformation exists. However, contrary to some “misinformation” researchers I do not argue that I have some special ability to identify misinformation beyond subject matter expertise.
For instance, NOAA’s BDD tabulation is misinformation because of flaws in the methods and results, which you can independently verify on your own — not because I appeal to some consensus or my authority.
Similarly, you can see that the BDD is misinformation based on the data of the BDD, and not the characteristics of the data that you can be “inoculated” against.
I have invited NOAA to offer a counterargument to my claims, and offered to publish that here — so far they have declined.
If unclear, please ask again 👍
Thanks Roger, I understand your points. I'm not sure we've come across or have the same view of misinfo researchers. I've not gotten the perception that there is such a big emphasis on special abilities beyond subject-matter expertise to identify it (though consensus and expert-authority are proxies for subject-matter expertise in other realms, e.g. policy-making). Though I understand your stance regarding some behaviorist approaches toward tackling misinfo (via 'innoculation').
The question still remains, what constitutes misinformation? And who decides what is and isn't misinformation, and who should we trust with determining that? Should we trust your statement that NOAA engages in misinfo (so that you'd be a NOAA-fact-checker of sorts)? Should we do this because of your authority? That you told us that you looked at the methods/results (this requires trust - an important dimension of course for the broader issue of politics, from personal to institutional level)? That the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (we both know how fraught the peer-review process can be)? Or, should we wait for another researcher or group to reproduce your work in npj Nat Haz before we take your conclusions as fact (my preference, though we both know that reproducibility studies are not incentivized), including that of the claim that NOAA engages in misinformation?
Given all these questions, does the misinformation label even serve a purpose, given that it's a contested term (not only in terms of definition, but the political divides it likely reflects in both definitions and strategies to tackle) and that we do not foresee any practical ways in which we could rigorously apply the label (not least because of the political divides mentioned)?
These are all open questions, not expecting any definitive answers, just reflecting based on your writing, feel free to answer any or none. To be clear, I do think misinformation is an issue, and one that is causing increasing havoc. And I don't see any silver bullets in terms of tackling it, any means of getting to grips with it will necessitate compromises (which is likely to be informed by politics) and possible negative, and sometimes unexpected consequences (my intuition says the 'innoculation' approach could cause some of this).
DC, thanks
Some thoughts below
The question still remains, what constitutes misinformation?
RESPONSE: In this case, NOAA’s BDD, it is information that fails to meet the agency’s standards for information quality and scientific integrity. And NOAA knows better.
And who decides what is and isn't misinformation, and who should we trust with determining that?
RESPONSE: In this case, NOAA has made it easy by providing standards of scientific integrity that are fairly objective.
Should we trust your statement that NOAA engages in misinfo (so that you'd be a NOAA-fact-checker of sorts)?
RESPONSE: Definitely not! I’m made my case, supported it, and invited NOAA to respond. People should evaluate whether I’ve made my case or not.
Should we do this because of your authority?
RESPONSE: I’m not big on appeals to individual authority. That said, we need authoritative institutions (like NOAA) that we can trust if society is going to work. I trust NOAA’s weather forecasts without independent verification, because of their track record, which earns my trust in their authority.
That you told us that you looked at the methods/results (this requires trust - an important dimension of course for the broader issue of politics, from personal to institutional level)?
RESPONSE: This one is easy. Anyone can confirm my claims independently.
That the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (we both know how fraught the peer-review process can be)?
RESPONSE: No more than any peer reviewed paper — that is, it has passed some minimal quality control.
Or, should we wait for another researcher or group to reproduce your work in npj Nat Haz before we take your conclusions as fact (my preference, though we both know that reproducibility studies are not incentivized), including that of the claim that NOAA engages in misinformation?
REPONSE: No one need await further analyses - all claims and evidence are public record. This one is pretty simple.
Given all these questions, does the misinformation label even serve a purpose, given that it's a contested term (not only in terms of definition, but the political divides it likely reflects in both definitions and strategies to tackle) and that we do not foresee any practical ways in which we could rigorously apply the label (not least because of the political divides mentioned)?
RESPONSE: I generally agree. It is much more appropriate to identify misinformation in a specific context then to try to develop an overarching covering theory. Here at THB I challenge many claims, but with specifics and not based on some overarching theory of “misinformation.”
Good stuff!
Thank you for the detailed response Roger - read on-the-fly at the time but didn't get a chance to respond.
Appreciate the answers and agreed on the specific-context aspect, including the use of specific/well-defined standards. Only thing I'm concerned is that the term misinfo will be abused and politicized to the extent that it will have little use, either by polarizing discussions from the get-go, getting bogged down on discussing definitions and 'benchmarking' instead of discussing substantive arguments (no criticism to you - obviously you're focusing on the latter).
Thanks again
Dan Williams is very good on misinformation
https://open.substack.com/pub/conspicuouscognition/p/misinformation-poses-a-smaller-threat
And thanks for this recommendation, read a few posts over the summer - good stuff indeed.
What does the high-profile opportunity in the standfirst refer to? That the paper was published in "...npj Natural Hazards, a journal in the Nature family of journals"? If so, and you wish to make an oblique connection with the Nature journals, there's nothing high-profile about it as the so-called Nature-family of journals has zero in common editorially when it comes to selectivity and the corresponding editorial processes.
No, the opportunity is NOAA’s to correct the scientific record and get back on track 👍
Very good, looking forward to their response and any further exchanges - interesting case study from multiple angles.
Not a direct comment on this important paper. Just in case you missed this from the AAAS stat section::
Webinar Title:
Decoding Climate Vulnerability: Harnessing the Power of Data Science
Date and Time:
June 17th, at 1 pm ET
Please register for the webinar using the following link:
https://tiny.cc/StatisticsUWebinar
Your powerful, influential pieces are valuable assets for your energy sanity friends and allies, Roger. Thanks, again.
FYI, Andy Revkin has published a response from NOAA (the only coverage I've seen)
https://revkin.substack.com/p/noaa-responds-to-peer-reviewed-critique
It is not much of a response, but says that NOAA might in the future choose to respond
Roger, your criticism of NOAA's Billion Dollar annual reports is expressed very diplomatically. I first encountered one of these over a decade ago and it was obvious that population and development growth was an important but unstated factor influencing damage reports. Why has it taken so long for others to realize this? And why doesn't NOAA realize how these reports damage their brand?
Roger has some kind words for the work NOAA does but I'm reminded of Tom Karl's "pause buster" temperature record leading up to the Paris Accords where hull temperature records were used to "correct" the readings from what I think was the network of permanent buoys Pielke Sr. references in his paper. I never quite trusted them on climate matters after that. I can't recall if Roger ever commented on that.
I have invited Adam Smith of NOAA (who oversees the BDD tabulation) to respond, which I will publish here at THB
Smith's response does not need approval from political appointees or NOAA media folks
NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy explains:
"Covered individuals engaged in science and the development of scientific products may speak freely to the media and the public about scientific and technical ideas, approaches, findings, and conclusions based on their official work."
Smith responded and said that it would be “inappropriate” to respond while they are preparing a response to the journal. 🤷♂️
Great job. Fair and balanced. NOAA must now apologize for purposely misinforming the public.
I'm guessing I'm like many THB subscribers in that I'm hoping THB is that rare entity without an overt (or covert) agenda to distort facts in support of a particular theology. I'm just trying to get as good a sense as I can for CO2 emissions and their consequences. Objectivity on climate, especially in the mainstream media, seems to be the scarcest commodity around.
Last night CNN commenced its "Violent Earth" series hosted by Liev Schrieber. The first episode was about tornadoes, and while it was not stated explicitly, I doubt it will surprise you that the series implied that tornados were getting more frequent and intense. In one of his brief cameos during the show, Schreiber mentioned a future episodes on wildfires, stat9ing that they were becoming more frequent and dangerous. I don't recall that he drew a straight line between climate change and wildfires, but to me the implied conection was clear.
I'm curious if any of your other subscribers saw the show and understood its perspective as I did.
Roger- have you looked at the NCA and asked the same "science integrity" questions about the info therein?
Interesting that this arrived on my email feed the same morning as your THB email. Based on the NOAA material.
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/the-rise-in-americas-billion-dollar-extreme-weather-disasters/
About a dozen people sent me that🤣
Your analysis and position regarding NOAA behavior has been out there for some time now. I am surprised that there has been no public response from NOAA. Any non-public response that you can share? Ron
"...what sorts of self-correction might take place among policymakers who have used the dataset to justify specific policies."
This will be interesting to watch.
Good investigative reporting Roger. I enjoyed reading the entire paper, The number and scope of the unsupported NOAA claims is so great as to make me wonder if NOAA scientific integrity is even possible with the tens of trillions of dollars in funding and energy transition enterprise available by promoting climate catastrophe. It's a Barnum and Bailey world, just as phony as it can be. Our democratic institutions are under siege by the Right and our science and free speech by the Left.