Slashdot Mirror
Wildlife Deputy Changed Science For Lobbyists
fistfullast33l writes "In another case of a government official creating a 'unique' interpretation of science, TPM Muckraker reports on Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior in Washington. The Department's Inspector General issued a report today documenting evidence that MacDonald not only overrode opinions of department scientists to benefit lobbyists, and political interests, but also that she shared internal documents with said lobbyists and a friend in an unnamed online roleplaying game. My favorite episode: 'At one point, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a nesting range of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a running battle with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.'"
After reading and re-reading all 3 linked articles, I see no specific or generic reference to an MMOG. Am I blind (if so, I blame it on MMOG-induced sleep deprivation)? Is the article summary just making that part up? Or is there another article that wasn't linked? Inquiring minds want to know.
"Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst."
That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?
BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The demarcation is only for which statements are scientific and which are not. As I think you were trying to point out, falsifiable statements are scientific statements, so stating that the evidence cannot be questioned is removing the theory from criticism. Technically, this is a correct statement, but it is completely missing the point of the parent. Using demarcation against Gore like that, to try and trap him on a technical question to hide from the larger criticisms he argues is quite disingenuous and slanderous to Critical Rationalism for you to wield scientific demarcation like that while claiming to uphold Popper's assertions. Popper and his student Bartley didn't stop at demarcation.
What we are really discussing is a "should" statement. The question is "What should be done, if anything, about environmental changes?" There can be no rationally justified answer to this question, just as there can be no rationally justified answer to any "should" statement. There are no good reasons, rationally speaking, for taking any action for the simple fact that predicting the future is impossible. When it comes to "should" statements we must rely on the probabilities produced by models of the problem.
So, for climate change, there are a number of parameters that our model needs to understand in order to calculate the probable success of any proposal to not cause or even prevent harm to society. If the climate changes will cause harm, can we alter them? Is human action contributing to the harmful climate changes? What human actions will reduce harm the most?
What I believe the parent was communicating and the point Gore was trying to make, was that the scientific statements that have survived falsification thus far best fit the explanation that the earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon levels that are currently best explained by fossil fuel burning, that this is harmful and that we should do something about it. What Gore and a large part of the scientific community are trying to say, is that further attempts at falsification before action is taken is self-defeating at best and suicidal at worst. Will we ever know for sure? Nope. Can't be sure the sun is going to come up tomorrow until tomorrow either. I'm not real inclined to quit taking any action today that has to do with tomorrow because I can't be sure the sun is going to come up. Especially given the really huge probability that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Just as the scientific facts which have survived falsification point to the sun coming up tomorrow, they point to human assisted global climate changes.
Either falsify the science that leads to these calculations of probabilities or start arguing for a course of action that deals with the changes. Anything else has no information content that is meaningful to the discussion. Oh, and go read David Miller's "Out of Error". It will bring you up to speed on what's happened with Popper's ideas since the 30's.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
The predictions about "global cooling" eventually leading to the next continental glaciation ("ice age") are real ... on a thousand-year timescale ... and relate to orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles). Though there is still plenty of debate about the details, the generalities haven't changed -- an ice age is expected someday, assuming the system behaves as it did in the past, and we are "due" for one in the next several thousand years. So, he's right that people talked about that general concern (a new ice age) back in the 1960s and 1970s, as geologists and climatologists started to understand some aspects of the glacial/interglacial cycles the Earth has been experiencing over the last few million years.
The problem is, worrying about eventual global cooling of this type is kind of like worrying about what to do as you glide down a long and gently wavering ski slope (i.e. "global cooling"), while ignoring the trees pointing the other way that are in your path (i.e. "global warming"), and for which are a much more immediate concern. It doesn't mean scientists were or are wrong about the eventual expectation that a new ice age will occur, they just realized there was a shorter-term and more alarming climate trend the other way. Scientists haven't changed their minds or been "wrong" so much as realized there was a more pressing concern than the long-term trend.
One thing that realization suggests is that sequestration of CO2 might be useful -- we might want it back in a few centuries or thousands of years to stave off an ice age (kind of like terraforming our own planet).