Now to ....
Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog11 November 2009
Wolfgang Knorr on Uncomfortable Research
*******************************EXCERPT*************************************
At the University of Bristol, Wolfgang Knorr has a new paper out in GRL that finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has increased lockstep not changed with increasing emissions, suggesting that the Earth system may have a greater capacity to take up carbon than previously thought. However, this post is not about the details of the study or its significance, which are important, but rather Professor Knorr's admirable response when pressed about whether his research gives support to the "deniers."
On radio 106.5 in Bristol Knoor was interviewed by Marin Jones who repeatedly asked about whether Knorr was concerned that his research would help the cause of the "deniers." Here is Jones' second effort to elicit a response, which I transcribed from the audio stream:
Is there any sense of trepidation at putting out research like this? People who do want to deny the reality of climate change and the reality that it is caused by human beings can jump on this as an excuse and use it to suggest doing nothing or very little.
Knorr's response is responsible and measured:
We have had a lot of research that could be interpreted that way. I believe science has to be open and fair and we should not hide any of the results. Climate critics will always find something, no matter what the results are. It's not an indication not to do anything and you can always misinterpret results. But I think that kind of misinformation dies out quickly, I don't see a problem.
Kudos to Professor Knorr.
30 comments:
Now following the comments on the Blog...see post #39...just above ...Article at the American thinker is referenced:
October 09, 2009
The Science of Disinformation
*******************************EXCERPT***************************************
By Jed Gladstein
In the dictionary:
- Science is defined as "knowledge gained by the study of the physical world."
- Knowledge is defined as "possession of ... truths."
- Disinformation, is defined as "false ... information."
So, apart from a possible oxymoron, what in the world is the Science of Disinformation?
The Science of Disinformation is the deliberate, immoral disregard of truth for the sake of selling something packaged as science. Think it can't happen? It is happening in a very big way, and right in front of our very eyes.
Whatever one's view about global warming,1 it is an odds-on bet that most of us don't know very much about the science underlying what has become a global socio-economic phenomenon.2 For example, most people don't know that many scientists think Al Gore's
movie An Inconvenient Truth propagated the theory of human global warming based on some very inconvenient untruths.
Most people also don't know that when Al Gore was chosen for political reasons to receive the Nobel Peace Prize in connection with his global warming advocacy, he was supposed to share that prize with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.3 However, IPCC scientist Dr. John Christy refused to accept the Nobel Prize because he did not want to dignify "jump-to-conclusion advocates" and "scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse."4
So, what's going on here? Why do the mainstream media continue to tell us that the science "is in" on global warming, when so many scientists who actually deal with the scientific data say otherwise?5 Well, perhaps the mainstream media are relying on people like Randy Olson, a marine biologist turned movie maker, whose ideas about honesty include the notion that if you want to get a scientific message across to the scientifically illiterate public, don't obsess about facts.
In the dictionary:
- Fact is defined as "something that can be shown to be true."
- Knowledge is defined as "possession of ... truths."
- Science is defined as "knowledge ..."
- Disinformation, is defined as "false ... information."
So, I guess the Science of Disinformation is all about possessing information that does not support what people say when they want others to believe that science proves something they know it does not prove. Interesting notion of science, wouldn't you say? Let's hope our doctors don't adopt the climate change model of science any time soon. Can you imagine how you'd feel if your doctor operated on you for rectal cancer and the only thing you needed was a hemorrhoid suppository?
