"George A. Kresovich, a partner at Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson PS, focuses his practice primarily on land use and environmental law with emphasis on representation of controversial projects at contested administrative hearings before local governments and state agencies."
Below is an e-mail sent to Scientific American, today, in a clear attempt to smear Drs. Michael Mann and Phil Jones.
What a jerk! This is the type of person that the other side uses -- I refer to the Climate Denial Machine. I wonder what his per-hour rate is for selling his soul and selling out the American people. My comments inserted in square brackets.
And notice how he cc-ed the infamous liar Patrick Michaels, but did not mention him in the e-mail. What is up with that?
From: "George Kresovich" <GAK@hcmp.com
Date: November 9, 2010 2:14:05 PM EST
To: <editors@sciam.comCc: Michael Mann, Phil Jones, <judith.curry@eas.gatech.edu<
Subject: Why are so many skeptical about climate science?
Dear Editors:
In his article in your November issue discussing the “transgressions” of Marc Hauser, the Harvard primatologist accused of seeing and reporting data that others could not see or reproduce, Scott Lilienfeld asserts – quite correctly – “The very edifice of science hinges on the willingness of investigators to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.” It is reassuring to note that there is at least one person at your magazine who understands the fundamental basis of science.
In that same issue you profile “climate heretic” Judith Curry and report the impact that Climategate has had on climate research and public policy. You note that “bodies ranging from the U.N. to the British government to universities on both sides of the Atlantic” have concluded that the researchers involved (principally Professors Michael Mann and Phil Jones) had made no major errors and had not distorted their findings. Apparently, for Scientific American, this settles the matter.
It would be good if all scientists everywhere always reported the results of their investigations with scrupulous accuracy. Would that we could live in such a heavenly world. But distorting evidence does not “undermine the very edifice of science.” Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel, to mention just two, smoothed their data. Nevertheless, such inevitable, all-too-human failings pose no fundamental threat to science.
Science itself provides the best defense against such unethical behavior. Results that cannot be reproduced and bad data will be found out – as long as we hold fast to the essential principle on which the edifice of science is founded – the willingness of scientists to entertain the possibility they might be wrong.
And that is why your apparent acceptance of the conclusion that Climategate was not a serious breach of scientific ethics rings so false. Professors Mann and Jones and their colleagues may or may not have distorted their findings and reached erroneous conclusions. Their peers will have to determine that.[THEY ALREADY DID, OVER AND OVER, THE RESULTS STAND] And, if they did commit such transgressions, their failings could be, to extend your religious metaphor, either venial or mortal sins depending on the extent of their distortions and the effort and time needed to correct them. But such sins would have eventually been found out, and science would have proceeded – a bit tarnished perhaps – on its drunkard’s walk to a better and more complete understanding of the universe.
But what Professors Mann and Jones did in Climategate is much, much worse than simply playing tricks with the data to support their hypothesis.[FALSE] It is undisputed that they attempted to silence researchers reporting data and advancing hypotheses in conflict with their own. [FALSE] They also attempted, with clear evidence of success, to put the journal Climate Research in limbo if it failed to sing from their hymnal and to usher out of the choir those who refused to do so.[FALSE] This is not scientific sin. It is a complete repudiation of science itself. It is scientific heresy. And, while sinners should be punished (and, if they repent of their misdeeds, eventually forgiven), heretics – well, heretics should be treated much more severely.
If it is part of Scientific American’s mission to defend science, your voice should be leading the chorus in condemnation of Professors Mann and Jones. But I am not surprised that you have not called these sinners to account because I remember your response to Bjorn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Just a few years ago, you found it necessary to defend science in response to the facts and arguments presented by Mr. Lomborg. Science needed no such defense. Mr. Lomborg had merely presented evidence for all to see and claimed that this evidence supported his conclusions. [FALSE] Those who thought he was wrong were free to review his evidence, analyze his arguments, and refute them if they could. Mr. Lomborg may or may not have been correct, but he did not attack science – he embraced it. [FALSE]
Your dogmatic response to Mr. Lomborg and your silence regarding the much greater transgressions of Professors Mann and Jones speaks eloquently either to your fundamental lack of understanding of what science is all about – which I doubt – or to your own bias and hypocrisy. You apparently share the doctrines of the leading secular religion of our time, doctrines embraced by your co-religionists, Professors Mann and Jones. You need look no further than a mirror to see the fundamental basis for the mistrust that the climate change skeptic community exhibits. I for one will rejoice and kill the fatted calf if Scientific American returns to the skeptical fold of true science.
Very Truly Yours,
George Kresovich
George A. Kresovich
1221 Second Avenue | Suite 500 | Seattle, WA 98101
d: 206.470.7610 | 206.623.1745 | f: 206.623.7789
gak@hcmp.comDear Editors:
In his article in your November issue discussing the “transgressions” of Marc Hauser, the Harvard primatologist accused of seeing and reporting data that others could not see or reproduce, Scott Lilienfeld asserts – quite correctly – “The very edifice of science hinges on the willingness of investigators to entertain the possibility that they might be wrong.” It is reassuring to note that there is at least one person at your magazine who understands the fundamental basis of science.
In that same issue you profile “climate heretic” Judith Curry and report the impact that Climategate has had on climate research and public policy. You note that “bodies ranging from the U.N. to the British government to universities on both sides of the Atlantic” have concluded that the researchers involved (principally Professors Michael Mann and Phil Jones) had made no major errors and had not distorted their findings. Apparently, for Scientific American, this settles the matter.
It would be good if all scientists everywhere always reported the results of their investigations with scrupulous accuracy. Would that we could live in such a heavenly world. But distorting evidence does not “undermine the very edifice of science.” Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel, to mention just two, smoothed their data. Nevertheless, such inevitable, all-too-human failings pose no fundamental threat to science.
Science itself provides the best defense against such unethical behavior. Results that cannot be reproduced and bad data will be found out – as long as we hold fast to the essential principle on which the edifice of science is founded – the willingness of scientists to entertain the possibility they might be wrong.
And that is why your apparent acceptance of the conclusion that Climategate was not a serious breach of scientific ethics rings so false. Professors Mann and Jones and their colleagues may or may not have distorted their findings and reached erroneous conclusions. Their peers will have to determine that.[THEY ALREADY DID, OVER AND OVER, THE RESULTS STAND] And, if they did commit such transgressions, their failings could be, to extend your religious metaphor, either venial or mortal sins depending on the extent of their distortions and the effort and time needed to correct them. But such sins would have eventually been found out, and science would have proceeded – a bit tarnished perhaps – on its drunkard’s walk to a better and more complete understanding of the universe.
But what Professors Mann and Jones did in Climategate is much, much worse than simply playing tricks with the data to support their hypothesis.[FALSE] It is undisputed that they attempted to silence researchers reporting data and advancing hypotheses in conflict with their own. [FALSE] They also attempted, with clear evidence of success, to put the journal Climate Research in limbo if it failed to sing from their hymnal and to usher out of the choir those who refused to do so.[FALSE] This is not scientific sin. It is a complete repudiation of science itself. It is scientific heresy. And, while sinners should be punished (and, if they repent of their misdeeds, eventually forgiven), heretics – well, heretics should be treated much more severely.
If it is part of Scientific American’s mission to defend science, your voice should be leading the chorus in condemnation of Professors Mann and Jones. But I am not surprised that you have not called these sinners to account because I remember your response to Bjorn Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Just a few years ago, you found it necessary to defend science in response to the facts and arguments presented by Mr. Lomborg. Science needed no such defense. Mr. Lomborg had merely presented evidence for all to see and claimed that this evidence supported his conclusions. [FALSE] Those who thought he was wrong were free to review his evidence, analyze his arguments, and refute them if they could. Mr. Lomborg may or may not have been correct, but he did not attack science – he embraced it. [FALSE]
Your dogmatic response to Mr. Lomborg and your silence regarding the much greater transgressions of Professors Mann and Jones speaks eloquently either to your fundamental lack of understanding of what science is all about – which I doubt – or to your own bias and hypocrisy. You apparently share the doctrines of the leading secular religion of our time, doctrines embraced by your co-religionists, Professors Mann and Jones. You need look no further than a mirror to see the fundamental basis for the mistrust that the climate change skeptic community exhibits. I for one will rejoice and kill the fatted calf if Scientific American returns to the skeptical fold of true science.
Very Truly Yours,
George Kresovich
George A. Kresovich
1221 Second Avenue | Suite 500 | Seattle, WA 98101
d: 206.470.7610 | 206.623.1745 | f: 206.623.7789
No comments:
Post a Comment