|
Monday, April 18, 2005My junk science is better than your junk science!In a write-up of Exxon's funding of groups that question global warming, Howie Kurtz has this paragraph: Milloy says Mother Jones has taken "old information and sloppily tried to insinuate that ExxonMobil has a say in what I write in my Fox column, which is entirely false. . . . My columns are based on what I believe and no one pays me to believe anything." Despite a mainstream scientific consensus, Milloy says that "the hysteria about global warming is entirely junk science-based" and that he sees no need to disclose the ExxonMobil funding in his writing because it's not "relevant."Would that be like the scientfic consensus on phlogiston? The sun revolving around the earth? Atoms are the smallest units of matter? A few months back, Scientific American had one hell of an article on the global warming question. Some researchers think it began when early man started chopping down trees and raising effluent animals in relatively confined spaces at the dawn of the agricultural revolution. And a good thing, else we'd be in an ice age. While the article was meant to be provocative, rather than indicating that climatologists had all changed their minds, it showed that the global warming issue is still in play. You may not approve of Exxon or Milloy, but Kurtz' summary dismissal of doubts about global warming indicates a lack of curiosity about a major matter of scientific inquiry and an equal lack of respect for readers of the Post, whom one presumes are capable of forming their own judgments without a cutesy reminder about the orthodoxy of the day. 
posted by gbarto at 6:58 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
