For example, The Island of Doubt has a great little edit to a paragraph Sarah Palin's latest speech on the issue and "corrected" it, which is educational in itself for those of you not up to date. I liked it and figured you wold too so here is the main part from it:
"I will begin with this paragraph:
The e-mails reveal that leading climate"experts"deliberately destroyed[deleted copies of] records,manipulatedadjusted data to "hide the decline" inglobalselect North Americantemperatures[tree-ring proxy data that conflicted with observational records], and tried tosilence[challenge]their[non-expert] critics'by preventing them from publishing[competency and the wisdom of allowing flawed papers to appear] in peer-reviewed journals.What's more, [T]he documents show that there wasnoa real consensus even within the CRU crowd. [While s]ome scientists hadstrongdoubts about theaccuracy of estimatesreliability oftemperatures[proxy data] fromcenturies ago[the last three decades,estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate, [the observational data since 1850 only confirms the science behind anthropogenic climate change].
Hmm. On second thought, that took too much work for a single paragraph, and now it says nothing very interesting. In any case, I don't have the time to conduct a similarly rigorous edit of the rest of the essay. Sorry to get your hopes up. Recommend you start over from square one. An introductory course in climatology would be a good idea before tackling this issue again."
So I have to clarify, Palin wrote an article for the Washington Post (why they would publish and op-ed piece by probably the least qualified person to write about scientific issues in general, I have no idea) but several people have critiqued - see this piece in the Washington Post by lan I. Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of the journal Science.
No comments:
Post a Comment