More prompted by Grist:
The latest debate on 'overselling' climate science
In an earlier post on these pages I have cautioned against a defensive mentality... Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner. These are challenges to be addressed...
But in light of a few posts above I'd like to share an exchange I had in the UK media:
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/it-must-be-true-i-read-it-in-paper.html
---
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
---
To which I had what I consider a fun, but still helpful reply:
---
Personally I'd be inclined to proceed by a lexicographic ordering on the following:
1. area of specialisation (climatology > geology > chemistry > mathematics > other science > arts, etc.);
2. level of qualification (in the UK, professor > senior fellow > lecturer > postdoc > PhD student > graduate), i.e. prefer the lecturer in geology to the PhD student in the same subject;
3. host institution, i.e. when faced with conflicting opinions from two climatology professors, prefer the Oxford professor to the one hosted by some US big-oil thinktank.
---
Sadly the majority of the other artillery exchanges mirrored those I too often see here.
To make it a more of a global wa... rming affair, you may enjoy playing with these too: http://www.badscience.net/?p=386
No comments:
Post a Comment