Columnist Calls for "Honest Disagreement," Holds Straight Face

In her Aug. 12 column, "Paralyzing fog of certainty on climate" Debra Saunders asserts many things, including that money flows to climate scientists as well as climate skeptics. No argument there. However, she neglects to distinguish between the quality of research this money funds, asking, "Why not posit that there is such a thing as honest disagreement on the science?" The problem is, much of the disagreement is dishonest, hiding under a veil of science.

Multinational fossil fuel corporations have billions of dollars riding on U.S. inaction on climate change. These corporations are behind a number of analyses that do not hold up to peer review: not because of inherent biases of the peer reviewers, but because the science is junk.

In Saunders's world, however, there is no such thing as junk science. Just honest disagreement.

Defending the integrity of sound science from the attack of propaganda is not a "muzzling of dissent." Rather, it is the mechanism through which this fog of uncertainty will clear, and science will triumph over ideology.

Tags

More like this

You don't have to look far to find mutterings about the peer review system, especially about the ways in which anonymous reviewers might hold up your paper or harm your career. On the other hand, there are plenty of champions of the status quo who argue that anonymous peer review is the essential…
I'd like to hear from some other sciencebloggers and science readers what they think reform of peer-review should look like. I'm not of the opinion that it has any critical flaws, but most people would like to see more accountability for sand-bagging and other bad reviewer habits. Something like…
Time was when what we call science was known as "natural philosophy." For the last couple of hundred years or so, however, science has become something quite different from the other branches of philosophy. Modern-day philosopher-scientists like Janet "Adventures in Science and Ethics" Stemwedel…
An important part of the practice of science is not just the creation of knowledge but also the transmission of that knowledge. Knowledge that's stuck in your head or lab notebooks doesn't do anyone else any good. So, scientists are supposed to spread the knowledge through means such as peer…

Good point, Ian, and thank you for shining light in another dark corner. It's necessary to reveal what these junk science cheerleaders are really advocating.

Cheers.