Eisenhower in his farewell address warned that a 'scientific-technological elite' dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy. Now, as Eisenhower predicted, scientific advice is contaminated by political considerations aimed at protecting the interests of science and scientists.
Scientists will exaggerate the importance of their own work. However, there should be a line that is not crossed -- the line that separates self-promotion from corruption.
The corruption of science does not necessarily mean lying or faking data. Mostly it is a matter of exaggerating the danger, or importance, of some theory, or else remaining passive while others exaggerate.
A common corrupt path to scientific success is to discover and overpromote a new danger; perhaps something that causes cancer, hurts children, or poisons the environment. The scientists who discover and overpromote the new danger become heroes and get more grants and more money.
Acid rain (scary sounding) is caused by sulfur emissions from burning coal in electrical generating plants. In a 1984 editorial the New York Times said: '...the warning signs -- dead lakes, damaged crops, forests of stunted trees - presage a massive natural disaster.' Acid rain turned out to be a tempest in a teacup. The government program to ameliorate acid rain cost the economy billions and only has a target of reducing sulfur emissions by half. If acid rain is so dangerous, why does the government only cut it by half?
Some other science-based scare stories include: asbestos, DDT, lead, plutonium, nuclear power, the ozone hole, species extinction, vaccines causing autism, power lines causing cancer, fracking, second hand smoke, ocean acidification, global cooling and the biggest scare, global warming. Typically, there is a core of real science behind each scare and then the danger is blown up out of all proportion to the real danger.
It should not be a defense for scientific corruption that the scientist was innocently in error. A stricter standard of accountability is necessary to discourage the corruption that is currently poisoning science. Human nature being what it is, the scientists engaging in corrupt behavior always believe they are engaged in a noble crusade. If there is a price to pay for abusing the trust placed in science, scientists will act more prudently.
The intellectual foundation for global warming is computer smoke and mirrors. The predictions of doom rely on computer models of the Earth's climate. The only reason to believe these complicated models is the professional judgment of the very climate scientists whose jobs and reputations depend on the believability of those computer models. It's a fox guarding the hen house situation.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist with a record of great accomplishment, complains that when he publishes a paper critical of the climate establishment, other papers refuting his work are already written and he is refused the opportunity to defend his work.
The global warming scare story has been heavily attacked on the Internet both by professional scientists and by amateur scientists. The amateurs range from highly qualified critics such as Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts to borderline cases that often put forth irrelevant or wrong arguments. Global warming skeptics are shut out of most media outlets. The availability of Internet outlets has served an essential role in exposing the weaknesses in the global warmers' arguments.
When scientists, or their organizations, offer supposedly objective advice that will greatly influence their own interests, we must be highly suspicious of that advice and seek second and third opinions. Dissenters within a discipline should be taken seriously and not treated as outliers who can be ignored. Sometimes the dissenters are really whistle blowers who are willing to risk their careers.
Getting a second opinion may be difficult because it may be hard for persons outside of the discipline's establishment to understand the issues. Retired scientists or persons trained in the discipline but pursuing different careers might be good candidates to offer objective advice. Persons in related disciplines are also good candidates. For example, many of the better-informed critics of global warming are physicists, economists, or engineers. These are fields used to dealing with computer models, statistics, and measurement.
Norman Rogers is a retired entrepreneur who writes about global warming and renewable energy. He is a volunteer Senior Policy Advisor with the Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank. He maintains a website.
Eisenhower in his farewell address warned that a 'scientific-technological elite' dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy.
Now, as Eisenhower predicted, scientific advice is contaminated by political considerations aimed at protecting the interests of science and scientists.
Scientists will exaggerate the importance of their own work. However, there should be a line that is not crossed -- the line that separates self-promotion from corruption.
The corruption of science does not necessarily mean lying or faking data. Mostly it is a matter of exaggerating the danger, or importance, of some theory, or else remaining passive while others exaggerate.
A common corrupt path to scientific success is to discover and overpromote a new danger; perhaps something that causes cancer, hurts children, or poisons the environment. The scientists who discover and overpromote the new danger become heroes and get more grants and more money.
Acid rain (scary sounding) is caused by sulfur emissions from burning coal in electrical generating plants. In a 1984 editorial the New York Times said: '...the warning signs -- dead lakes, damaged crops, forests of stunted trees - presage a massive natural disaster.' Acid rain turned out to be a tempest in a teacup. The government program to ameliorate acid rain cost the economy billions and only has a target of reducing sulfur emissions by half. If acid rain is so dangerous, why does the government only cut it by half?
Some other science-based scare stories include: asbestos, DDT, lead, plutonium, nuclear power, the ozone hole, species extinction, vaccines causing autism, power lines causing cancer, fracking, second hand smoke, ocean acidification, global cooling and the biggest scare, global warming. Typically, there is a core of real science behind each scare and then the danger is blown up out of all proportion to the real danger.
It should not be a defense for scientific corruption that the scientist was innocently in error. A stricter standard of accountability is necessary to discourage the corruption that is currently poisoning science. Human nature being what it is, the scientists engaging in corrupt behavior always believe they are engaged in a noble crusade. If there is a price to pay for abusing the trust placed in science, scientists will act more prudently.
The intellectual foundation for global warming is computer smoke and mirrors. The predictions of doom rely on computer models of the Earth's climate. The only reason to believe these complicated models is the professional judgment of the very climate scientists whose jobs and reputations depend on the believability of those computer models. It's a fox guarding the hen house situation.
Richard Lindzen, an MIT scientist with a record of great accomplishment, complains that when he publishes a paper critical of the climate establishment, other papers refuting his work are already written and he is refused the opportunity to defend his work.
The global warming scare story has been heavily attacked on the Internet both by professional scientists and by amateur scientists. The amateurs range from highly qualified critics such as Steve McIntyre or Anthony Watts to borderline cases that often put forth irrelevant or wrong arguments. Global warming skeptics are shut out of most media outlets. The availability of Internet outlets has served an essential role in exposing the weaknesses in the global warmers' arguments.
When scientists, or their organizations, offer supposedly objective advice that will greatly influence their own interests, we must be highly suspicious of that advice and seek second and third opinions. Dissenters within a discipline should be taken seriously and not treated as outliers who can be ignored. Sometimes the dissenters are really whistle blowers who are willing to risk their careers.
Getting a second opinion may be difficult because it may be hard for persons outside of the discipline's establishment to understand the issues. Retired scientists or persons trained in the discipline but pursuing different careers might be good candidates to offer objective advice. Persons in related disciplines are also good candidates. For example, many of the better-informed critics of global warming are physicists, economists, or engineers. These are fields used to dealing with computer models, statistics, and measurement.
Norman Rogers is a retired entrepreneur who writes about global warming and renewable energy. He is a volunteer Senior Policy Advisor with the Heartland Institute, a Chicago think tank. He maintains a website.
FOLLOW US ON
About Us |Contact |Privacy Policy |RSS Syndication
Entities 0 Name: Chicago Count: 4 1 Name: Eisenhower Count: 4 2 Name: Steve McIntyre Count: 2 3 Name: Michigan Avenue Count: 2 4 Name: Richard Lindzen Count: 2 5 Name: Biden Count: 2 6 Name: Norman Rogers Count: 2 7 Name: Anthony Watts Count: 2 8 Name: New York Times Count: 2 9 Name: Russian Count: 2 10 Name: Earth Count: 2 11 Name: MIT Count: 2 12 Name: Heartland Institute Count: 2 13 Name: US Count: 1 Related 0 Url: http://ift.tt/1kvXsEF Title: The GWPF bemoans state of climate debate - while promoting antagonism Description: Lord Nigel Lawson and his associates at the Global Warming Policy Foundation have been all upset this month. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a 79-year-old meteorologist from the University of Reading, had resigned from the foundation's academic advisory council only a couple of weeks after joining.
Post a Comment for "The Corruption of Science"