Subject: Global warming 'controversy'
Mr. Beck,
I am writing to ask that the people at your program stop and think about who are the interested parties in the global warming debate. And then consider the way science works and how intellectually conservative and skeptical scientists are as a group. Oil companies and other _very_ vested interests are trying, and have succeeded (it's easy when one acts in bad faith), at spreading uncertainty and doubt about climate science. While truth and acting in _good_ faith matters not a bit for oil executives [cbs: http://tinyurl.com/2ucb8t], those two things are scientists' bread and butter.
Unfortunately, your May 2 program would have the public believe the reverse is true: that scientists are out to win buckets of money and the sober source of information is industry funded lobby groups and 'scientists'. Even more ironically, after saying that an inconvenient truth is going 'unchallenged', you bring the industry funded 'climate skeptics' on to your show and let them give their opinion completely outside of a context of debate.
Given how costly climate change will be and how little it will cost the economy to fix it, such television programming is despicable.
(omitted)
PhD student
PS While it is true that one gets more funding for science that has a broader relevance, that is not the main determinant for who gets funding. Most scientists are eager to debunk outlandish claims by their colleagues. It is good science that resists scrutiny and good researchers with a track record of rigor and innovation that get funding. The way many journalists spin it, one would think that 'more funding' means a bigger salary -- almost all funding is R+D money for technology, travel, and research assistants.
PPS The claims of the people on your program could have and should have been fact-checked. If you really want to see a well-cited and debated piece of writing on the topic, the Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming work well (or at least serve as good pointers). Some fact checking has been done for you ex post facto here: http://tinyurl.com/2emjq9
Mr. Beck,
I am writing to ask that the people at your program stop and think about who are the interested parties in the global warming debate. And then consider the way science works and how intellectually conservative and skeptical scientists are as a group. Oil companies and other _very_ vested interests are trying, and have succeeded (it's easy when one acts in bad faith), at spreading uncertainty and doubt about climate science. While truth and acting in _good_ faith matters not a bit for oil executives [cbs: http://tinyurl.com/2ucb8t], those two things are scientists' bread and butter.
Unfortunately, your May 2 program would have the public believe the reverse is true: that scientists are out to win buckets of money and the sober source of information is industry funded lobby groups and 'scientists'. Even more ironically, after saying that an inconvenient truth is going 'unchallenged', you bring the industry funded 'climate skeptics' on to your show and let them give their opinion completely outside of a context of debate.
Given how costly climate change will be and how little it will cost the economy to fix it, such television programming is despicable.
(omitted)
PhD student
PS While it is true that one gets more funding for science that has a broader relevance, that is not the main determinant for who gets funding. Most scientists are eager to debunk outlandish claims by their colleagues. It is good science that resists scrutiny and good researchers with a track record of rigor and innovation that get funding. The way many journalists spin it, one would think that 'more funding' means a bigger salary -- almost all funding is R+D money for technology, travel, and research assistants.
PPS The claims of the people on your program could have and should have been fact-checked. If you really want to see a well-cited and debated piece of writing on the topic, the Wikipedia articles on climate change and global warming work well (or at least serve as good pointers). Some fact checking has been done for you ex post facto here: http://tinyurl.com/2emjq9
No comments:
Post a Comment