Must Read Blogs

Andrew Sullivan
Michael J. Totten
Little Green Footballs
James Lileks
Instapundit
Classical Values
Rachel Lucas
Pejmanesque
USS Clueless
Winds of Change
Samizdata.net
Daniel W. Drezner






 
Archives

<< current












 
Scenes from the front line of life in Portland, Oregon, USA.

Email

Syndicate This Site(RDF/XML)




























Jason Holliston
 
Monday, May 02, 2005  
Scientific Political Correctness?

Pejmanesque led me to this article on the Telegraph UK, spotlighting leading climate scientists having their work rejected by Science, one of the leading scientific journals in the world. What did they do to get rejected? According to the scientists, they had studies that ran contrary to the "consensus" that the world is indeed warming, and the cause is primarily due to human's existence. I won't quote as much as he did, but you should read the whole thing to get the background:

Dr. Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

It would be -- unfortunate, to say the least, if Dr. Peiser was correct about what's going on. Government programs designed to fight global warming are not cheap, sometimes costing almost unimaginable amounts of resources to implement. If there's a significant amount of dissent out there concerning this, we need to step back and think about it.

This story dovetails nicely with the book State Of Fear by Michael Crichton, which I read a few months ago. In his own research, outside of the fictional storyline, Mr. Crichton states that there is plenty of research out there to make him question the assumption of the "consensus". I've felt the same thing in my own reading.

12:38 PM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment
 

States -- World66



World -- World66



This page is powered by Blogger.