PenOnBeadedChain -> RE: OPPS...There Go the Rising Sea Levels! (2/22/2010 6:05:48 PM)
|
Isn't it striking how lopsided the integrity standard is in this whole public debate over climate change? A scientist discovers that there were errors in his analysis that resulted in a published paper (which if you read the article, might make the original conclusion more OR less pronounced than stated), so he contacts the journal, and alerts them to it so that the collective literature will not be degraded with the inaccurate finding. It underscores the pretty wonderful self-policing nature of climate science, for those who don't already know scientists and realize that this sort of thing is pretty standard (papers get retracted sometimes, it's no shame to anyone in the field, it's actually very much appreciated). Meanwhile... over in the other corner we have obfuscation artists, industry spokespeople and idiots on capitol hill spreading one absurd, long-debunked red herring after another, for decades on end now. When they are called on the misleading statements, or inaccuracies, why they just scurry off and pop their lying heads up somewhere else to spread the same misleading "memes". Working that public to notch their bosses a few more thousand or million confused members of the public and preserve another few months of record fossil fuel (or manufacturing unfettered by controls) profits at humanity's expense. And it's all just okay to the "skeptic" crowd, because really, scientists are naturally held to a higher standard than businessmen and politicians. The latter two groups can lie all they want and it's just cool because that's capitalism in all its imperfect glory - people just looking out for their bottom line interests, yadaya. Nothing personal. But when one or two or three scientists screw up on a calculation, out of literally thousands of published papers that are put out on this subject (most of which the average Joe never even knows about because he's busy watching NASCAR), well THAT'S a big story. And the story? Why, it's all about how unreliable the science in general is. Why we shouldn't listen to those hordes of experts who are all saying basically the same things. BECAUSE WE FOUND ONE OF THEM THAT DIDN'T DOT AN I OR CROSS A T. Tell me, does a species that operates this way deserve to survive? I mean, objectively? Wouldn't you say if we continue to comport ourselves like this we are basically unfit? When collectively we give our rational side (science) such short shrift in relation to our appetitive side (want more stuff, want to keep wasting, don't want to rein myself in, etc.)? Think of homo sapiens as a candidate for survival. Are we exhibiting a sustainable mindset? Right now it sure doesn't look like it.
|
|
|
|