The right-leaning Drudge Report made it a habit in November and December to trumpet any and all headlines relating to the “Climategate” controversy — the story involving hacked emails attacking critics of global warming, which found their way onto the Internet. Those emails raised suspicions among global warming deniers of a conspiracy to hide or destroy climate data that would help make their case. A House of Commons inquiry cleared Jones of any possible wrongdoing, but a day later, that headline was nowhere to be found on the Drudge Report.
George_Brewer is completely wrong. Good science has needed defending since the time of Galileo. Whenever good science has proven something that contradicts religious or conservative dogma, it has been slandered. For example despite the mountains of proof offered, the majority of Americans still doubt evolution. Care to guess why? It doesn't matter what kind of solid evidence you have, if someone does not want your claims to be true they will find an excuse to tear you down and conceal the truth. Fox News pundit, O'reily even called teaching science in science class fascist because it will lead students to question and seek out evidence and not just believe thing because they're told.
There are people still acting like the hacked and quote mined emails in "climategate" are accurate. These are also the people who think the Acorn videos on Drudge were unedited (another lie perpetuated by the right wing media). The Drudge was also shy on informing its viewers how members of the GOP in Kentucky were convicted of manipulating the electronic voting results for the past decade.
When it comes down to it good science will need to develop better ways to inform people because those who would suppress it for their own reasons will always be better funded and lacking in morals.
Why would scientists need to learn new media tricks? Good science needs no defense. Bad science uses tricks to hide the faulty supposition, bad experimentation, and/or contradictory results. Unfortunately, we are unable to experiment on the climate. We can run simulations, gather data and draw correlations, but experiment?
No offense to the House of Commons, but what are their qualifications, other than legislative body to examine the evidence and render a judgement? Opinion, yes. Judgement? No!
Loading ...
Old Science Caught in New Media Whirlwind
Posted by: Renay San Miguel March 31, 2010 03:32 PMThe right-leaning Drudge Report made it a habit in November and December to trumpet any and all headlines relating to the “Climategate” controversy — the story involving hacked emails attacking critics of global warming, which found their way onto the Internet. Those emails raised suspicions among global warming deniers of a conspiracy to hide or destroy climate data that would help make their case. A House of Commons inquiry cleared Jones of any possible wrongdoing, but a day later, that headline was nowhere to be found on the Drudge Report.
There are people still acting like the hacked and quote mined emails in "climategate" are accurate. These are also the people who think the Acorn videos on Drudge were unedited (another lie perpetuated by the right wing media). The Drudge was also shy on informing its viewers how members of the GOP in Kentucky were convicted of manipulating the electronic voting results for the past decade.
When it comes down to it good science will need to develop better ways to inform people because those who would suppress it for their own reasons will always be better funded and lacking in morals.
No offense to the House of Commons, but what are their qualifications, other than legislative body to examine the evidence and render a judgement? Opinion, yes. Judgement? No!