Heyoka_11
23rd September 2011, 04:27
G'day Everyone,
I hope that you are all fairing well.
Please read the following, watch the video if you have time, and give me your thoughts as to how best I could respond to our national broadcaster here in Australia.
Our national broadcaster is the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, also known as "Aunty"), and each week they air a science magazine style program called Quantum. It is not intended to contain indepth scientific investigation; just easy to digest snippets of an eclectic nature.
Recently, I was incensed when a segment was devoted to the subject of anthropomorphic climate change.
Please watch the following video. I hope you will then understand what has got Heyoka all fired up. You will need to excuse the editing of the original, although it does say something about the mentality of the poster. :wacko2:
tYaE2-oXq7Y
My blood boiled! :angry:
Here is the message that I immediately sent off to the ABC......
After enjoying both Quantum and Catalyst from their inception, the climate
science segment that I have just viewed on Catalyst will be the final time I watch your
program.
"Peer reviewed science on the one hand, and spin on the other". What a damned insult;
and what a shameful travesty to witness. What was once a fine, albeit intentionally
pedestrian level, scientific magazine, being used as a means of furthering the
non-science of anthropomorphic climate change.
Shame on you Aunty!
I did not expect a reply, and so was quite shocked when I received one a few minutes ago.
Dear Tony,
Science is a discipline that gathers and organises knowledge and makes predictions that
can be tested (and falsified) by other researchers, through observation of natural
phenomena and experimentation to simulate those phenomena under controlled conditions.
Independent peer review is part of the scientific method that verifies experimental
results and conclusions.
The quote about “peer-reviewed science and spin” you refer to is from Prof Ove
Hoegh-Guldberg. To provide further context, here is the statement in his interview from
which the excerpt was taken:
“I think that the deliberate misinformation campaign, very much like what happened with
tobacco, has had some impact on people’s trust and understanding of science. One thing
that scientists have tried to do is to debate people like Lord Monckton, but if you
debate people who aren’t guided by the truth, and make it up as they go along, then
you’re going to lose the debate, because you’re sort of hog-tied by the truth.
Scientists always go back to the peer-reviewed literature, they’re very cautious
people, and of course when you see that in public, and if you’re not trained in
science, then people can think well, there’s that opinion and that opinion. Well
there's actually you know, an opinion - spin on one hand, and then there's you know,
peer-reviewed science on the other. They're very different. But the public I think has
got that, you know, that's been hard for them to understand, and I'm not surprised that
many people are a little confused about where science fits.”
For additional background, we refer you to Prof Ian Chubb’s online interview
accompanying the program, that can be viewed at
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3313480.htm. Prof Chubb speaks in detail about
the scientific method, the role for peer review, and the accepted need for scrutiny of
science and scientists.
We encourage you to continue to watch Catalyst for further investigations into
scientific efforts to query the contribution of human activity to climate change.
Regards
Catalyst
My blood is boiling all over again! :rant: :censored: They appear to think that their version of science is the only legitimate one!
However, as someone (albeit anonymously) has taken the time to reply from Catalyst, I would like to counter their argument, and this is where I would appreciate your input.
Please post your thoughts as to what could go into in a response, or maybe even compose one yourself. Or simply make comment if you feel your blood may boil as well!
As always, humour is welcome, if you can find something to laugh about!
Thanks for taking the time to read this post, whether or not you choose to reply.
Best Wishes,
Tony. :lazy2:
I hope that you are all fairing well.
Please read the following, watch the video if you have time, and give me your thoughts as to how best I could respond to our national broadcaster here in Australia.
Our national broadcaster is the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation, also known as "Aunty"), and each week they air a science magazine style program called Quantum. It is not intended to contain indepth scientific investigation; just easy to digest snippets of an eclectic nature.
Recently, I was incensed when a segment was devoted to the subject of anthropomorphic climate change.
Please watch the following video. I hope you will then understand what has got Heyoka all fired up. You will need to excuse the editing of the original, although it does say something about the mentality of the poster. :wacko2:
tYaE2-oXq7Y
My blood boiled! :angry:
Here is the message that I immediately sent off to the ABC......
After enjoying both Quantum and Catalyst from their inception, the climate
science segment that I have just viewed on Catalyst will be the final time I watch your
program.
"Peer reviewed science on the one hand, and spin on the other". What a damned insult;
and what a shameful travesty to witness. What was once a fine, albeit intentionally
pedestrian level, scientific magazine, being used as a means of furthering the
non-science of anthropomorphic climate change.
Shame on you Aunty!
I did not expect a reply, and so was quite shocked when I received one a few minutes ago.
Dear Tony,
Science is a discipline that gathers and organises knowledge and makes predictions that
can be tested (and falsified) by other researchers, through observation of natural
phenomena and experimentation to simulate those phenomena under controlled conditions.
Independent peer review is part of the scientific method that verifies experimental
results and conclusions.
The quote about “peer-reviewed science and spin” you refer to is from Prof Ove
Hoegh-Guldberg. To provide further context, here is the statement in his interview from
which the excerpt was taken:
“I think that the deliberate misinformation campaign, very much like what happened with
tobacco, has had some impact on people’s trust and understanding of science. One thing
that scientists have tried to do is to debate people like Lord Monckton, but if you
debate people who aren’t guided by the truth, and make it up as they go along, then
you’re going to lose the debate, because you’re sort of hog-tied by the truth.
Scientists always go back to the peer-reviewed literature, they’re very cautious
people, and of course when you see that in public, and if you’re not trained in
science, then people can think well, there’s that opinion and that opinion. Well
there's actually you know, an opinion - spin on one hand, and then there's you know,
peer-reviewed science on the other. They're very different. But the public I think has
got that, you know, that's been hard for them to understand, and I'm not surprised that
many people are a little confused about where science fits.”
For additional background, we refer you to Prof Ian Chubb’s online interview
accompanying the program, that can be viewed at
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3313480.htm. Prof Chubb speaks in detail about
the scientific method, the role for peer review, and the accepted need for scrutiny of
science and scientists.
We encourage you to continue to watch Catalyst for further investigations into
scientific efforts to query the contribution of human activity to climate change.
Regards
Catalyst
My blood is boiling all over again! :rant: :censored: They appear to think that their version of science is the only legitimate one!
However, as someone (albeit anonymously) has taken the time to reply from Catalyst, I would like to counter their argument, and this is where I would appreciate your input.
Please post your thoughts as to what could go into in a response, or maybe even compose one yourself. Or simply make comment if you feel your blood may boil as well!
As always, humour is welcome, if you can find something to laugh about!
Thanks for taking the time to read this post, whether or not you choose to reply.
Best Wishes,
Tony. :lazy2: