Whatever happened to journalistic integrity — i.e. journalists being objective reporters of the facts?
Ms. Sorg is entitled to her personal beliefs, but projecting them on the public as "news" is inappropriate.
As a physicist I happen to have a scientific understanding of all the issues she cites. In each case she has not presented an objective case.
For example, while the abiotic view is the minority position, that hardly makes it wrong. See "tinyurl.com/ckn5gv8" for a list of technical articles on this topic.
For example, she seems to believe that science is adjudicated by a vote. That has never been the case, and will never be the case. Science is determined by empirical evidence, not "consensus".
Consider that up until a few years ago that the entire medical establishment (100% consensus) believed that ulcers were caused by stress. That is: every MD in the world, every hospital in the world, every medical school in the world, every pharmaceutical company in the world, etc. This included tens of thousands of PhDs and MDs.
They were ALL wrong.
OMG you caught me redhanded!
Yes, after I graduated, got married and was working for GE, I decided to invest in real estate to give my family some extra financial security. So in our 20's and 30's my wife and I bought several homes to renovate and rent in upstate NY. They have all been sold many years ago
Those real estate investments certainly explain my concern about the science behind SLR!
BTW, make sure in your "investigation" that you indict anyone who owns stocks and mutual funds as a wall-street collaborator.
If you think "investor" and "developer" are synonyms, and that a false article is true, then it is understandable as to how you can be fooled by thinking that the CRC Panel's effort is actually a "scientific assessment" of the NC SLR situation.
We have no political agenda, sorry, as we are an apolitical collection of citizens.
Our agenda is that the state's technical policies should be based on real science. So yes, we oppose anyone who is against that.
Are you in favor of policies being based on science?
It's great that you are interested in NC legislation. As a journalist I would assume that you have a commitment to accuracy?
There are about a dozen factual errors in your piece — for instance your repeated assertion that I am (was) a real estate developer. I have never been a real estate developer in my life.
The Guardian story is almost 100% false — if you wanted to check it out. One green blog that did (TreeHugger) issued an apology for quoting from that dishonest story "http://www.treehugger.com/environmental-po…".
Feel free to email me at "firstname.lastname@example.org" if you'd like to write an accurate story. Be forewarned: it will conflict with your agenda.
For others, please see "http://tinyurl.com/7nau5nc" for a more factual explanation of what is transpiring here.
I'm a physicist (just like Dr. Hansen) and this article is overloaded with misinformation and biases. It is an advertisement for a political agenda, and should be identified as such.
The simple fact is that as the public gets more educated about the SCIENCE they will grasp the idea that AGW is an unproven hypothesis.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation