next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects --20cf305b0d1218e65a04a9543f1d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 All: I don't often chime in on naturens discussions regarding what could be described as my general field of doctoral study (climate change). It is a mixed blessing that I am involved inside a field of science that has very strong societal impacts; on one hand, the work is relevant to many people, on my levels. On the other hand however, many people tend to either "believe" in one side or the other, making objective discourse more difficult. I can't comment on the source article since I have not read it, nor am I likely to. It could be a full-time job to read scientific papers, even limited to one broad topic such as climate change. I am not familiar with the journal Remote Sensing, but the fact that it may have a low impact factor, or that the author is a known skeptic of climate science consensus does not mean they publish propaganda pieces. It is apparently an open-access online peer-reviewed journal, which typically means anyone can view the referees' comments as well as the original manuscript. Unfortunately, reading and understanding scientific articles can require a great deal of background information that is time-consuming to digest. This Forbes article reads more like an opinion piece to me, as belied by the cheap vernacular. The excessive use of the adjective 'alarmist', as pointed out by Bob already, shows the article is not meant to convey unbiased information. I think it is quite rare in science that a single published work revolutionizes a field (or punches gaping holes if you prefer) and to unduly weigh the significance of one paper, without considering the multitude of others on the subject, is unreasonable. I am reminded of a lecture by John Smol, who is a Canadian scientist who studied the effects of acid rain by examining the acidity of lakes in eastern North America. In a study published during the Reagan administration, his team showed that of all the lakes sampled (I forget the number, let's say 20) 1 lake did not show an increase in acidity. Similar print media articles to the one I just read were published denouncing sulfurous industrial emissions as detrimental to the general environment based on that one lake. Dr. Smol was making an analogy between his research on acid rain in the 1980s, and current work on climate change. The message that he really drove home for me was, however, that scientists, as a whole, do not do enough to disseminate their research to the public directly. -- Bruce Stevens Maryvale, NS --20cf305b0d1218e65a04a9543f1d Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable All:<br><br>I don't often chime in on naturens discussions regarding wh= at could be described as my general field of doctoral study (climate change= ). It is a mixed blessing that I am involved inside a field of science that= has very strong societal impacts; on one hand, the work is relevant to man= y people, on my levels. On the other hand however, many people tend to eith= er "believe" in one side or the other, making objective discourse= more difficult.<br> <br>I can't comment on the source article since I have not read it, nor= am I likely to. It could be a full-time job to read scientific papers, eve= n limited to one broad topic such as climate change. I am not familiar with= the journal Remote Sensing, but the fact that it may have a low impact fac= tor, or that the author is a known skeptic of climate science consensus doe= s not mean they publish propaganda pieces. It is apparently an open-access = online peer-reviewed journal, which typically means anyone can view the ref= erees' comments as well as the original manuscript. Unfortunately, read= ing and understanding scientific articles can require a great deal of backg= round information that is time-consuming to digest.<br> <br>This Forbes article reads more like an opinion piece to me, as belied b= y the cheap vernacular. The excessive use of the adjective 'alarmist= 9;, as pointed out by Bob already, shows the article is not meant to convey= unbiased information. I think it is quite rare in science that a single pu= blished work revolutionizes a field (or punches gaping holes if you prefer)= and to unduly weigh the significance of one paper, without considering the= multitude of others on the subject, is unreasonable.<br> <br>I am reminded of a lecture by John Smol, who is a Canadian scientist wh= o studied the effects of acid rain by examining the acidity of lakes in eas= tern North America. In a study published during the Reagan administration, = his team showed that of all the lakes sampled (I forget the number, let'= ;s say 20) 1 lake did not show an increase in acidity. Similar print media = articles to the one I just read were published denouncing sulfurous industr= ial emissions as detrimental to the general environment based on that one l= ake. Dr. Smol was making an analogy between his research on acid rain in th= e 1980s, and current work on climate change. The message that he really dro= ve home for me was, however, that scientists, as a whole, do not do enough = to disseminate their research to the public directly.<br> <br><br clear=3D"all"><br>-- <br>Bruce Stevens<br>Maryvale, NS<br> <div style=3D"visibility: hidden; left: -5000px; position: absolute; z-inde= x: 9999; padding: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; overflow: hidden;= word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; li= ne-height: 130%;" id=3D"avg_ls_inline_popup"> </div> --20cf305b0d1218e65a04a9543f1d--
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects