This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.It's the same techniques used by conservative Christian groups to put down things like porn, strippers and prostitution. They latch onto news that supports their ideas and will continue to rehash it long after it has been debunked in their attempts to link the sex industry to crime and violence. Meanwhile they ignore peer-reviewed scientific investigation that points to the contrary.
Because there is loads of peer-reviewed porn, strippers and prostitution.
4 comments:
Check out this article then:
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
This is exactly the kind of 'news' story I am talking about. First, if you check the source, it is an editorial. Editorial means it is an editor's opinion. So even if it comes from a reputable news source, it does not have to stick to the facts. Not that other news does this, but editorials can be above criticism for being wrong since by their nature they are opinions. While they might speak a truth on occasion, you don't get the news from talk radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh or Randi Rhodes because they editorialize.
Secondly, the article uses interviews to make its case. They speak with 'reputable scientists' which on the surface looks very convincing. In fact, 'reputable scientists' can become 'disreputable scientists' with the publication of just one set of false data. The way to avoid this is to not publish false data. Study whatever the hell you want. Try to prove whatever the hell you want to prove. But no reputable scientist, even if they talk openly about their opinions and theories, will publish junk data, skewed results or tampered evidence. Doing so is professional suicide. Even over zealous researchers who published data a bit too soon have had their careers trashed beyond the help of all apologies. You can say what you want, but if you publish data it better stand up.
Lastly, the scientific 'evidence' does not come from peer-reviewed sources. This is very important. Anyone can publish data. In this day and age even I can publish data. But only data from peer-reviewed journals should be taken seriously by lay people. Researchers can look at their fellow scientist's finding and find the flaws because they know what they are looking at. That is the purpose of peer review. Without it, the sources may seem a lot glossier than they should. For instance in the editorial you quote it sites a study done by the Hoover Institution. At first glance this seems like a reputable source. After all, the Hoover Institution resides on the campus of Stanford University. But if you look into it you discover they are a conservative think tank receiving much of its funding from companies such as Boeing, Chrsyler, Exxon, Ford, GM, and Transamerica. So the so-called study by the Hoover Institution is not peer reviewed but instead funded by corporate donors who have a more than casual interest in debunking Global Warming.
And that's what I'm talking about.
Further investigation shows that Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz who is also cited in your linked article is an investor with heavy holdings in the energy industry.
The above research was conducted by Dr. J. Arthur Roth at the Center for Political Research.
I love the new title, "Dr. J. Arthur Roth." This could be your Jake in 2008 breakthrough!
Post a Comment