LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  April 2004

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE April 2004

Subject:

MannGram®: usurpations of scientific authority

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:28:43 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (306 lines)

        Monbiot's article below is so exhilarating in its forthright quest
for truth and contempt for dishonest media hacks that I feel provoked to
issue a new MannGram® in the quasi-samizdat series so studiously denied
overt acknowledgment in those media.
        I esteem Monbiot more than almost all journalists commentating on
my field (applied ecology), so I do him the honour of respectful comment.



> http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=650


> The Fossil Fools

     The dismissal of climate change by journalistic nincompoops is a
danger to us all

        < right on Geo.  In this country the "journalists" include
prominently, repeatedly in the NZ Herald the NZ agent of USA criminal &
nutter Lyndon LaRouche.


>     By George Monbiot.  Published in
       the Guardian 27th April 2004


>     Picture a situation in which most of the media, despite the
>overwhelming weight of medical opinion, refused to accept that there was a
>connection between smoking and lung cancer.

        < Dictating too fast here, Geo.  The issue is not "a connection".
It has moved way beyond that.  The issue is whether most lung cancer is
caused by smoking.  It is that clear; why are you so vague?


>  Imagine that  every time new evidence emerged, they asked someone with
>no medical qualifications to write a piece dismissing the evidence and
>claiming that there was no consensus on the issue.

        < That is actually the normal media procedure in New Zealand every
time new evidence emerges on gynaecology.  Indeed, nearly all the new media
items on O&G since 1987 are generated by 'someone with no medical
qualifications'.  Rewards for these usurpations are large: the main
impostor is now Governor-general, another became a list-MP but retreated to
Mongolia accused of filching from the public purse, another is an Auckland
Regional Councillor and has been able to get The Lancet to publish sporadic
columns of her opinions.  One of the originators of this crazy racket is
now head of the WHO non-infectious diseases division.
        < As a secondary effect, midwives have been treated as more
important authorities on O&G than, for instance, a highly respectable FRCOG
and chairman of the NZ Medical Association.  Almost all GPs have abandoned
obstetrics; midwives collecting large subsidies routinely fail to arrange
specialist backup at National Women's Hospital.  These trends will have
harmed a certain number of mothers and babies.
        < Geo's rhetorical manoevre is neat, but far from conclusive.  He
depicts, as if it were impossible or extremely unlikely, usurpation of
authority by non-specialists in medicine or science.  The awful truth is
that such usurpations are not rare these past few decades.  One main cause
is affirmative action putting ahead of expertise some ideology (usually
either racism, wimminsLib, or militant homosexuality).


> Imagine that the BBC, in the interests of "debate", wheeled out one of
>the tiny number of scientists who says that smoking and cancer aren't
>linked

        < That sloppy term again, Geo.   The apologists hired by the
tobacco industry in attempt to dissuade successive ministers of health from
imposing legal restrictions on sale & use of tobacco did not deny a link.
Their assertion was that causality had not been stringently enough
demonstrated.  It is a matter of degree.  As a member throughout of the
statutory board advising those ministers on poisons, I'm proud to say we
weren't persuaded by those deniers: smoking tobacco was agreed to cause
lung cancer (and other serious illnesses).  But I am also proud to say that
same Toxic Substances Board concluded the evidence (2 decade ago) on
passive smoking was far less persuasive, and rejected the pressure for
further restrictions from a  group of unqualified publicists.


> , or that giving up isn't worth the trouble, every time the issue of
>cancer was raised.  Imagine that, as a result, next to nothing was done
>about the problem, to the delight of the tobacco industry and the
>detriment of millions of smokers.  We would surely describe the newspapers
>and the BBC as grossly irresponsible.

> Now stop imagining it, and take a look at what's happening.  The issue is
>not smoking, but climate change.  The scientific consensus is just as
>robust

        < I'm sorry I can't exactly support that statement, with respect to
the main point of the IPCC which is *predictions*.   The evidence that
global warning has been caused by human activity, let alone the evidence
that it will in future get much worse, is not so conclusive as the evidence
that smoking has caused lung cancer.  It is, however, conclusive enough for
governmental purposes, as expressed (minimally) by the Kyoto treaty.


>, the misreporting just as widespread, the consequences even  graver.  If
>it is true, as the government's new report suggested last week, that it is
>now too late to prevent hundreds of thousands of British people from being
>flooded out of their homes,1 then the journalists who have consistently
>and deliberately downplayed the threat carry much of the responsibility
>for the problem.  It is time we stopped treating them as bystanders. It is
>time we started holding them to account.

        < Tell it like it is, Geo our man.  I only ask you to add
condemnation of rogue *scientists*.


     > "The scientific community has reached a consensus," the government's
chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, told the House of Lords
last month. "I do not believe that amongst the scientists there is a
discussion as to whether global warming is due to anthropogenic effects.
It is man-made and it is essentially [caused by] fossil fuel burning,
increased methane production ... and so on."2
 Sir David chose his words carefully.  There is a discussion about whether
global warming is due to anthropogenic (manmade) effects.  But it is not -
or is only seldom - taking place among scientists.  It is taking place in
the media, and it seems to consist of a competition to establish the outer
reaches of imbecility.

        < The extent of error, and the potential harm, are even worse in
what the media so cynically call "the debate" on gene-tampering.
        < Thus the most dangerous technology of all diverts hundreds of
billions of dollars and scientific talent that could in principle be
redeployed to appropriate technology & science.  The BBC gives Monsanto PR
operatives, lying unchallenged, free unbalanced time as if they were
reliable scientists.  The NZ media present propaganda agents with no
medical or scientific qualifications who are furthermore paid to generate
pro-GM 'spin', to give the final word in news items about GM.


  >  During the heatwave last year, the Spectator magazine made the case
that because there was widespread concern in the 1970s about the
possibility of a new ice age, we can safely dismiss concerns about global
warming today.3  This is rather like saying that because Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck's hypothesis on evolution once commanded scientific support and was
later shown to be incorrect, then Charles Darwin's must also be wrong.

        < Your liking for analogy gets you into trouble yet again, Geo.
This time it's an awful tangle.  You are wrong that Lamarck's main
hypothesis about evolution has been disproved.  The penchant of the dreaded
media to depict every issue as a bipolar 'tis-'tisn't conflict has engulfed
even you, regarding evolution theory.  Not only are examples known of
inheritance of acquired characteristics as envisaged by Lamarck, but much
more importantly, to the extent that Darwin was correct his ideas do not
logically exclude Lamarck's.  The notion 'Lamarck v. Darwin' is a glaring
fallacy.


>  Science differs from the leader writers of the Spectator in that it
>learns from its mistakes.  A hypothesis is advanced and tested.  If the
>evidence suggests it is wrong, it is discarded.

        < Fine  -  if experts dominate the discussion.  But when the media
displace experts with unqualified attention-seekers, the scientific method
you so rightly admire will no longer work.  The hypothesis that the Pap
smear is a reliable early warning of cancer, and that certain microscopic
anomalies of cells on the cervix indicate the uterus should be removed, is
not discarded, because it has become an ideological banner.  The hypothesis
that synthetic genes can be inserted into plants by drastically novel
methods not resembling any process known in nature, to give a GM organism
that has all properties unchanged except for the desired herbicide
resistance, or novel modified insecticide, is based on junk science at many
steps of its illogic.  Yet it prevails with governments, many of which have
invested in this new racket.  Language of Monbiot-type vigour is fully
warranted in criticism of this crazy fad.  GM has led the world far astray
because science has been sidelined.


> If the evidence appears to support it, it is refined and subjected to
>further testing.

        < Again, this is not what has happened in the hasty, rash releases
of GMOs.  Almost all the relevant testing has been omitted, and those few
scientists that have been funded to begin testing have been vilified &
purged if they report adverse effects (notably Ewen & Pusztai).  The truth
on actual maimings & killings of humans by material purified from GMOs
remains largely suppressed.


> That some climatologists predicted an ice age in the 1970s, and that the
>idea was dropped when others found that their predictions were flawed, is
>a cause for confidence in climatology.

        < Exactly  -  and this essential logical point is all you need.
Mistaken analogies only muddy the waters.


>  But the Spectator looks like the Journal of Atmospheric Physics by
>comparison to the Mail on Sunday and its Nobel laureate-in-waiting,
>Peter Hitchens.  "The greenhouse effect probably doesn't exist", he
>informed his readers in 2001.  "There is as yet no evidence for it."4

        < Time to ask you to do some imagining, Geo our man.  If you're
disgusted by that last statement from that agent, can you imagine how I as
a scientist feel about a *qualified* climate scientist  -  one of the few
in NZ  -  saying exactly that about global warming?  A suave West Indian
Christopher de Freitas who did his doctorate with the respected K Hare has
consistently propagandized in the media to confuse and misrepresent the
science of climate degradation.  Unprincipled hacks  -  hardly new, tho'
admittedly more rife than ever; but scientists issuing Hitchens-type
slogans  -  this is a yet more anti-social trend.
        < I take this opportunity of publicly challenging de Freitas to
declare what rewards, if any, he has received for his propagandizing.


 >    Perhaps Mr Hitchens would care to explain why our climate differs from
     that of Mars.  That some of the heat from the sun is trapped in the
     earth's atmosphere by gases (the greenhouse effect) has been
     established since the mid-19th century.  But, like most of these
     nincompoops, Hitchens claims to be defending science from its
     opponents.  "The only reason these facts are so little-known," he tells
     us, is (apart from the reason that he has just made them up), "that a
     self-righteous love of 'the environment' has now replaced religion as
     the new orthodoxy."5

    > Hitchens, in turn, is an Einstein beside that famous climate
scientist, Melanie Phillips.  Writing in the Daily Mail in January, she
dismissed the entire canon of climatology as "a global fraud" perpetrated
by the "leftwing, anti-American, anti-West ideology which goes hand in hand
with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the
industrialised world is wicked."6 This belief must be shared by the
Pentagon, whose recent report pictures climate change as the foremost
threat to global security.7 In an earlier article, she claimed that  "most
independent climate specialists, far from supporting [global warming], are
deeply sceptical."8  She managed to name only one,  however, and he
receives his funding from the fossil fuel industry.9
    > Having blasted the world's climatologists for "scientific
illiteracy",  she then trumpeted her own. The latest report by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which collates the findings of
climatologists), is, she complained, "studded with weasel words" such as
"very likely" and "best estimate".10  These weasel words are, of course,
what make it a scientific report, rather than a column by Melanie Phillips.

        < Right on Geo  -  and you could add that if they had been dogmatic
& totally certain (which good scientists like Sir John Houghton of the
IPCDC are not, in such predictions)  -  Melanie & her like would have
blasted them for failing to express uncertainties.


 > If ever you meet one of these people, I suggest you ask them the
following questions:
1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide?
2.  Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures?
3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide?
4.  Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide?
        It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no -
at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic
physics.

        < You miss the point.  Physics is quantitative, Geo.  The
qualitative facts you mention are not disputed by Lindzen et al., so you
actually get nowhere by reciting them.  What the industry stooges say is
that the *extent* of global warming in the past century is so small that it
is not utterly proven by statistics.  Lindzen goes further; I have heard
him say in a scientific gathering (while funded to propagandize in NZ by
the Business Roundtable) that even if the IPCC predictions do come true,
retrospective statistical analysis will still not be able to prove
temperatures, sea levels etc have changed *owing to anthropogenic
emissions*.   Precautionary, schmecautionary!


> But these dolts are rather less dangerous than the BBC, and its
>insistence on "balancing" its coverage of climate change.  It appears to
>be incapable of running an item on the subject without inviting a sceptic
>to comment on it.  Usually this is either someone from a corporate-funded
>thinktank (who is, of course, never introduced as such) or the
>professional anti-environmentalist Philip Stott.  Professor Stott is a
>retired biogeographer.  Like almost all the prominent  sceptics he has
>never published a peer-reviewed paper on climate change.  But he has made
>himself available to dismiss climatologists'  peer-reviewed work as the
>"lies" of eco-fundamentalists.11

...

>     What makes all this so dangerous is that it plays into the hands of the
     corporate lobbyists. A recently leaked memo written by Frank Luntz, the
     US Republican and corporate strategist, warned his party that "The
     environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in
     general - and President Bush in particular - are most vulnerable ...
     Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are
     settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.
     Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific
     certainty a primary issue in the debate."12

>     We can expect Professors Hitchens and Phillips to do what they're told.
     But isn't it time that the BBC stopped behaving like the public
relations arm of the fossil fuel lobby?

 >    www.monbiot.com


        < Right on Geo.

        < This work of yours is on the one hand the best I've seen for
years, but on the other hand also riddled with unnecessary furphies.  I
hope you can *relate to* that.


-
Robt Mann
consultant ecologist
   P O Box 28878  Remuera, Auckland 1005, New Zealand
                (9) 524 2949

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager