tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5811749743523633503.post8526608706116516560..comments2024-03-20T11:36:53.907+00:00Comments on Restoring Mayberry: Worst caseBrian Kallerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11082602126850605083noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5811749743523633503.post-52482608120977456362008-12-08T06:38:00.000+00:002008-12-08T06:38:00.000+00:00Several recent books shed light on the distortions...Several recent books shed light on the distortions I mentioned in my earlier post:<BR/><BR/>"True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society" by Farhad Manjoo<BR/><BR/>"Doubt is Their Product" by David Michaels<BR/> <BR/>"Undermining Science" by Seth Shulman<BR/><BR/>Each of these are excelent.Tadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12068448368001128294noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5811749743523633503.post-67334271401355408132008-12-07T22:41:00.000+00:002008-12-07T22:41:00.000+00:00Thanks for this great piece. What you found is ty...Thanks for this great piece. What you found is typical when examining the claims of a small, well-funded group who are trying to create uncertainty about global warming. They often cherry-pick data, or misrepresent the research of good scientists.<BR/><BR/>When I say small, well funded group, you have to look to the USA and how a similar campaign was run 10-20 years ago (by many of the same players) to manufacture uncertainty about the well proven link between tobacco smoke and disease.<BR/><BR/>Their ultimate goal wasn't to finally disprove all the good research done to date, but rather buy time for their clients by creating a lot of noise and uncertainty, sometimes via "astroturf" groups (phony organizations with nice sounding names created merely to give a reference as a source for what turns out to be misinformation).<BR/><BR/>We are seeing the same thing today with global warming, an attempt to create a "debate" about something that is really settled science.<BR/><BR/>In the USA, the news media often in an attempt to be "fair and balanced" and democratic, assume that for any position, there is a counter position which must be given equal attention. So now a small group of outliers are given equal time, giving the mistaken impression that both nonsense and fact are merely differing opinion.<BR/><BR/>I write a weekly bulletin for amateur radio operators (see http://www.arrl.org/w1aw/prop/) about sunspots, solar cycles, and how they affect shortwave radio propagation. This year especially I've seen actual falsification of data (sunspot numbers) by this crowd, who begin with the faulty assumptions that 1-warming is tied to sunspot cycles and 2-we are entering a period of decades with no sunspots, ergo we will see cooling instead of warming. Both assumptions are wrong, but the promoters act as if it is already settled science, rather than long ago disproven hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>I was yanked into this ten months ago when I received a massive volume of email in a single day from readers who were concerned about an unsigned article in Investor's Business Daily claiming we are entering a period of zero sunspots. The article quoted Dr. Kenneth Tapping, an astrophysicist with Canada's Penticton observatory, making all sorts of claims about future sunspot activity, climate, and several other topics which are far outside the expertise of a legitimate astrophysicist. After contacting Dr. Tapping, who I was aquainted with, I discovered that the quotes were a fabrication.<BR/><BR/>Although some of the information is now a bit old (in terms of months; more outrages have occurred since then) if you go to the URL above and look for bulletins numbered ARLP017-019, 023 or 029, you will find info on how to obtain Tapping's notes along with some comments following up on the distortions in the IBD article.<BR/><BR/>Thanks!Tadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12068448368001128294noreply@blogger.com