http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3541 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3541&cpage=1#comment-1420 Steve Bloom Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:20:21 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3541#comment-1420 Murray, the real reason for Barton's inquiry is that there is no meaningful distinction between him and the petrochemical industry. Recall the role that tobacco state congressmen (no women involved if I recall right) were playing in the tobacco debate circa twenty years ago. That said, and now having had some time to consider the situation, I think this move on Barton's part is a good sign in that he would have preferred to simply continue to ignore climate science. It seems clear enough from Boehlert's response that Barton will be unable to conduct a "show trial" of Mann et al with any credibility, but probably Barton has laid the groundwork for a lot more Congressional attention to climate during the next year or so. The more exposure the scientific consensus gets, the better. I suspect Barton will end up sorry he ever raised the issue. Murray, the real reason for Barton’s inquiry is that there is no meaningful distinction between him and the petrochemical industry. Recall the role that tobacco state congressmen (no women involved if I recall right) were playing in the tobacco debate circa twenty years ago. That said, and now having had some time to consider the situation, I think this move on Barton’s part is a good sign in that he would have preferred to simply continue to ignore climate science. It seems clear enough from Boehlert’s response that Barton will be unable to conduct a “show trial” of Mann et al with any credibility, but probably Barton has laid the groundwork for a lot more Congressional attention to climate during the next year or so. The more exposure the scientific consensus gets, the better. I suspect Barton will end up sorry he ever raised the issue.

]]> http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3541&cpage=1#comment-1419 Murray duffin Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:51:56 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3541#comment-1419 snip Climate scientists are only human, and their objectivity can be swayed by personal convictions or the bounty of research grants that this field promises.snip I think this is precisely the reason for Barton's inquiry. Adding these two factors, which seem to be clearly present, to the sloppiness already discussed here on Prometheus, and throwing in the many large unknowns and uncertainties, it would be no wonder if the public lost confidence. By losing objectivity and and allowing themselves a level of sloppines that would not be tolerated in industry and many other scientific disciplines, the AGW community has brought this investigation on themselves. Regardless of the conclusion, I suspect a lot of good will come from Barton's initiative. snip Climate scientists are only human, and their objectivity can be swayed by personal convictions or the bounty of research grants that this field promises.snip
I think this is precisely the reason for Barton’s inquiry. Adding these two factors, which seem to be clearly present, to the sloppiness already discussed here on Prometheus, and throwing in the many large unknowns and uncertainties, it would be no wonder if the public lost confidence. By losing objectivity and and allowing themselves a level of sloppines that would not be tolerated in industry and many other scientific disciplines, the AGW community has brought this investigation on themselves. Regardless of the conclusion, I suspect a lot of good will come from Barton’s initiative.

]]> http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=3541&cpage=1#comment-1418 Roger Pielke Jr. Tue, 26 Jul 2005 18:06:58 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheusreborn/?p=3541#comment-1418 Oh yeah, Thanks to David Appell for the link! Oh yeah, Thanks to David Appell for the link!

]]>