Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Ian Plimer's performance in his debate with Monbiot has to be seen to be believed. Rather than admit to making any error at all, Plimer ducks, weaves, obfuscates, recites his favourite catch phrase, tries to change the subject and fabricates some more. When confronted with the fact that the USGS says (backed with scientific papers) that human activities emit 130 times as much CO2 as volcanoes, Plimer claims that the USGS doesn't count underwater volcanoes. When told that the USGS specifically said that they do count undersea volcanoes, Plimer invented a story about how the nature of the rocks under the ocean proves that there must be unobserved emissions. Needless to say, this is not acceptable conduct for a scientist.
The University of Adelaide's code of practice on research misconduct states:
Misrepresentation : A researcher or reviewer shall not with intent to deceive, or in reckless disregard for the truth:
(a) state or present a material or significant falsehood; (b) omit a fact so that what is stated or presented as a whole states or presents a material or significant falsehood.
Elsewhere, James Randerson interviewed Plimer and
found him to be one of the most difficult and evasive interviewees I have spoken to in my career, frequently veering off on tangents rather than answering the question I had put.
Randerson has an another example of Plimer refusing to admit to even the most blatant error:
Elsewhere in the book, Plimer appears to have conflated a US temperature record and the global average temperature. On page 99 he writes "Nasa now states that [...] the warmest year was 1934." The Nasa dataset he is referring to covers the US only but he seems to be referring to the world average.
Again, Plimer does not appear to accept that the world is warming. But in fact, the hottest year on record is 1998 and eight of the 10 hottest years ever recorded have occurred this century.
When I put the mistake to him he responded: "The 1930s in North America and probably the rest of the world were a hot period of time." But what about increased global average temperature since then? "That has been disputed by many of my colleagues who I have a great regard for because they've been the people involved in putting measurements together ... I do dispute that as do many other people who are far more qualified in atmospheric sciences than I."
Bob Burton tracks down the story of how the AAP reported Plimer's speech before it happened. As you might have guessed, the journalist did a cut and paste from a press release put out by a PR firm.
On Saturday the Sydney Morning Herald printed a report from Copenhagen by Ian Plimer on a news page. My letter to them:
Please cancel my subscription to the SMH.
The SMH simply does not care about the accuracy of what it publishes. You obviously did not bother to check whether there was any basis to Ian Plimer's dishonest smears of climate scientist, allowing him to falsely accuse them of fraud and "mafia-type thuggery".
I don't know why you think your business model should involve deceiving your readers, but I'm not buying it or your paper any more.
believe what you like, but you will find yourself on the wrong side of this one
The contrast between the two articles is quite illustrative, but even within the first Zamboni segment, both the good and bad of science are in evidence. The neurologists think they already know that MS is an auto-immune disease so they resist associating with Zamboni. I imagine that they are afraid to take a hit to their apparent credibility, and at the least they are not being objective. The ‘societies’ are no doubt afraid of losses on their existing investments, hence their anti-rational stance.
The MS Societies of Canada and the U.S. are reticent to support Zamboni's theories. They maintain that: "Based on results published about these findings to date, there is not enough evidence to say that obstruction of veins causes MS... It is still not clear whether relieving venous obstructions would be beneficial."
smiths wrote:honestly, the theory of man made global warming is supported by science
the theory against this hypothesis is supported by loons, lies and oil money,
and the post modern idea that any idea as valid as the next
believe what you like, but you will find yourself on the wrong side of this one
Sounder wrote:To me, this is the result of an overbearing intellect so dependent on fixed forms that it leaves little room for signals from the heart and creative reinterpretation of our basic situation.
Sounder wrote:So I am not impressed with the current state of science as it seems more like scientism to me. This impression results from the modern embrace of things like fluoride, GM foods, ethanol, vaccines, aspartame, pharmaceuticals, soil killing chemical fertilizers, DU, etc. It seems like the only place for ‘objectivity’ in science is where it supports moneymaking enterprise, leaving the search for truth to discerning the shape of shadows on a cave wall. I am also pretty sure that there is new tech that is suppressed because it tends to undermine current moneymaking enterprise.
Sounder wrote:To me, this is the result of an overbearing intellect so dependent on fixed forms that it leaves little room for signals from the heart and creative reinterpretation of our basic situation.
tasmic wrote...
Perhaps you have a deeper analysis of this? And I notice you haven't commented on the reciprocality thread in the data dump.
It matters little to me to try to win over or convince people who doubt our climate is changing because of human activity.
It is changing. That you feel a couple of guys working at one small, rather unimportant climate research center in England (which happened to be founded and funded by the oil and gas industry) are at the root of some world conspiracy... well, you go right ahead and believe that.
I'll go on working to reduce our pollution just as diligently as ever regardless of what you feel or do.
And when I need their input, I'll go to those with more expertise than I have, scientists, chemists and physicians.
armed with nothing but a distrust of data generally. Can you not see how absolutely asinine and yet comic that is?
So Internews is probably like most media outlets, except that it is blatant about its non-journalistic agenda, even when it seems to run counter to their own ethical guidelines:
Impartiality. Whether they are working as journalists, trainers, moderators or producers, Internews staff attempt to provide a fair and representative array of relevant viewpoints. It is inappropriate to seek the protections and access that the neutral observer's role demands, and then actively advocate one side of the debate. By leaving the partisan advocacy role to others and making the distinction clear, journalists protect the credibility of their impartial news reports.
Their guidelines on impartiality makes an exception for "education":
While they eschew being "advocates" on partisan issues or political campaigns, some Internews staff will appropriately conduct "issue education campaigns" for journalists and the public, on topics that are chosen in consultation with Internews management. Appropriate topics include: advice on how to cover conflict without inflaming the protagonists; information about public safety concerns such as HIV/AIDS; and illegal trafficking in women and children. Inappropriate advocacy includes: covering an issue or political campaign with a deliberate bias for or against, while claiming to be a professional, impartial journalist; or shaping news content according to the bias or requests of an Internews funder.
So it is bad to shape the news according to the bias of a funder, even for the purposes of education.
Would it surprise you to learn that one of the donors to Internews is the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which established and runs the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
Now why would the UNEP be interested in a media organization? It would be interested if the organization supported the UNEP mandate of acting "as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment". But then it would be the case that Internews was shaping the news content according to the bias of a funder.
its outrageous that a couple of important scientists fiddled with graphs and discredited the tens of thousands of honest scientists whose work all points overwhelmingly towards the same conclusion
the theory against this hypothesis is supported by loons, lies and oil money,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests