Sunday, June 13, 2010

Comment on the Belmont Club :
"Whitewash versus Paint"

Belmont Club » Whitewash versus Paint

Do not underestimate an enemy with wealth, power and reputation at stake. They can be wrong but that does mean that they are stupid, lazy or cowardly. The Global Warming proponents are a key part of a totalitarian movement. It may not be as organized as a Confederation or as unified as a Conspiracy but if their was a Global RICO statute, and God forbid an authority that could enforce it, they would stand in peril. Expect the enemies of Watt to be at least as tenacious and creative as the enemies of Pamela Geller.

The old Weatherman knew there are three sources of power in a science policy debate. Or host misspoke by listing two and adding a third. In so doing he channeled either the notorious LoTM or the People's Front of Judea. They are;
1. owning information,
2. controlling a unique source of information,
3. an information professional's skill "for making a complex subject
     concrete and in your face."

The Warmists prove that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery by seeking to challenge the skeptics not in the closed lounges of Academe but on the evening news. At the American Museum of Natural History in New York they take this very seriously. Two points, neither of which is incompatible with the AMNH mission as a Museum dedicated to educating the public, illustrate this;
1. Eleanor Sterling heads the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation
     and blogs for the NY Times from Vietnam,
2. students at the AMNH's Richard Gilder Graduate School during the
     first year of their PhD program in Comparative Biology take a
     3 credit course titled "Grantsmanship, Ethics, and Communication."

Communicating an accurate representation of data properly obtained so as to instill a greater appreciation for the Scientific Method and to assist the public in making informed judgments on policy issues is what public science should be about. Marshaling all the tools of wealth power and reputation to support a preconceived and possibly wrong position, that people stand to gain billions of dollars from, is an abuse and possibly a fraud as serious as a financial adviser trading on his good suit, silver hair and firm's reputation to fleece his clients.

(who dreams that AGW and Gore's marriage unraveling are linked)

No comments: