What is Wrong with Embellishing Science?

Source:  Pielke, Jr. Blog

Roger Pielke, Jr.

embellishingpresent participle of em·bel·lish (Verb)




In Mann’s lawsuit he characterizes himself as having been “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.” Mann’s claim is what might be called an embellishment — he has, to use the definition found at the top of this post, “made (a statement or story) more interesting or entertaining by adding extra details, esp. ones that are not true.” An accurate interpretation is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did win the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, and the IPCC did follow that award by sending to the AR4 authors a certificate noting their contributions to the organization. So instead of being a “Nobel Peace Prize Winner” Mann was one of 2,000 or so scientists who made a contribution to an organization which won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Here we might ask, so what?

I mean really, who cares if a scientist embellishes his credentials a bit? We all know what he means by calling himself a “Nobel Peace Prize Winner,” right? And really, what is an organization except for the people that make it up? Besides, climate change is important, why should we worry about such things? Doesn’t this just distract from the cause of action on climate change and play right into the hands of the deniers?  Really now, is this a big deal?

Well, maybe it was not a big deal last week, but with the filing of the lawsuit, the embellishment now has potential consequences in a real-world decision process. A journalist contacted the Nobel organization and asked them if it was appropriate for Mann as an IPCC scientist to claim to be “Nobel peace prize winner.” Here is what the Nobel organization said in response:

Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.



Back in 2009, Mann explained why the title of his climate book – Dire Predictions — was an embellishment, and this explanation helps to explain why a small part of the community thinks that such embellishments are acceptable:


So long as some climate scientists are willing to talk about their work as being “correct” in scare quotes in the context of a desire to shape public opinion, they are going to face credibility problems. Think Dick Cheney linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein, and you’ll understand why such efforts are not good for either science or democracy.The late Stephen Schneider gained some fame for observing that when engaging in public debates scientists face a difficult choice between between honesty and effectiveness (as quoted in TCF pp. 202-203):

Often overlooked is what Schneider recommended about how to handle this “double ethical bind”:

 I hope that means being both [effective and honest].

That is a bit of advice that nowadays a few in the climate science community seem to have forgotten as they make embellishments for a cause. Such action have consequences for how the whole field is perceived — which is comprised mostly of hard-working, honest scientists who deserve better.

Be Sociable, Share!

Tags: ,