[Phys-L] Re: more scientific integrity problems

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

On 06/15/05 10:36, Jim Diamond quoted:

> http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianweekly/story/0,,1487648,00.html
>
> "...It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss
>  the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of
> evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the
>  palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the
> statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and
> thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals.
> You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an
>  eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a
>  non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling
> yourself a scientist."

That's somewhat too harsh.  David Bellamy has acted enough
like a scientist to at least consider the possibility that
he was wrong.

In his own words (May 29, 2005)
   http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1631977,00.html
> > There is an enormous body of opinion and information which could
> > indicate that man is having an impact on the climate, but the
> > counter view does not get much publicity. So, rightly or wrongly, I
> > have recently been trying to provide some balance in this debate.
> > However, as I have consistently said, I am prepared to change my
> > mind should the evidence warrant it and that I may be wrong.
> >
> > The real climate debate will be resolved in the court of science,
> > not in magazine articles, by the media nor on the rack of heresy.
> > Celebrity can be both a blessing and a curse and in this instance
> > it worries me greatly that my name and the headlines it inspires
> > have been responsible for reducing this most complex of scientific
> > issues to soundbites. I have therefore decided to draw back from
> > the debate on global warming.
> >
> > I will carry on working to help stitch the natural history of the
> > world back into biodiverse working order; creating the conditions
> > to allow Mother Nature to better deal with the huge complexities of
> > ongoing climate change.

Again I deplore the tendency of people to confuse two issues:
  -- climate change, and
  -- the role of humans in causing climate change.

Bellamy seems to be aware of the distinction, but doesn't
do a very good job of communicating it.

=========================================

The Bellamy flap stands in stark contrast to the recent
events at the White House.
  -- The WH promptly and categorically refused to consider
   the possibility that Cooney might have been wrong.
  -- Cooney, after resigning from the WH "to spend more time
   with his family" was unemployed for only few days.  He
   got a job with Exxon -- an outfit with a longstanding and
   oft-stated opposition to the idea of "greenhouse gasses",
   and an obvious conflict of interest in the subject.

I am also astonished by the superficiality of the reporting
on this incident.  The press seems to zero in on the
personalities ... such as Bellamy and Cooney.  They seem
to think that if they can get Cooney and/or Bellamy fired,
they've done their job, and the story is over.

But what about the science?  If we had anything resembling
a functioning scientific process, it would be important
to re-examine (and presumably revise and re-issue) the
reports that Cooney fudged.  Yet the WH refuses even to
consider doing this, and Congress (the recipient of some
of the reports) hasn't bothered to request it, AFAIK.
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l