On 9/20/07, ken barber <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> oh, i can give a senario (simplified of course just to
> be a little brief although this will still be long) .
> 1. a few scientist notice something they have not
> noticed before and tells a few more.

When scientists find something they haven't noticed before they start
researching it.  They don't tell anyone about it until the grants are
secured.

> 2. a few weeks
> later they discuss it again and say, yes, i see it too
> now.

Doesn't happen.  Papers are peer reviewed; anything new or unusual is
given particular scrutiny.

> 3 they plublish a limited finding. questioning
> what might cousde this abnormalty but, coming to no
> conclusion.

Any research paper has three main parts: a thesis, a body of evidence
that explores the thesis, a conclusion.

> 4 a leak to the media happens or a media
> person just finds it. alarm sells! newspapers,
> magazines. alarm gets viewers on tv and radio. so
> media gives an alarm. "we are going into an ice age x,
> y, z, scietist says." no mention to start that there
> are just questions out there that are not yet
> answered.

All published research papers are by definition available to the
media.  As I said, I favor Nature and Science.  They're hefty
publications; 100 to 300 pages of dense PHD or post doc level research
papers published every two weeks.  Few reporters in the popular press
manage to come close to even keeping up with the flow, much less
understanding it.

> 5 some scientist disagree, but, quite reason
> does not sell. it does not sell newspapers, magazines
> nor does it drive ratings so those scientist are
> ignored by media.

Doesn't matter to the scientists on either side of any given question;
what matters is that 1) their papers are accepted by the research
journals; 2) the grants keep coming (published papers feed grants,
grants feed published papers, that's the life cycle of the scientist,
the popular media isn't part of it for the most part).

> 6. another scientist puts forth a
> theory in answer to the one ignored and the media runs
> that becouse it sells. " "midwest to become frozen
> tundra according to scientis b.

That's why I keep telling you to go back to the basic research and
ignore what's in the popular media. Media prints what sells
advertising; big oil and gas fund popular media as much as anyone.

> 7. some of the public
> begins to be alarmed.  8 politicians notice that some
> of the public are allarmed.
> 9. they look at scientist
> x,y, z, and b's view and also note that SCIENTIST A,
> C, AND D ARE CALMLY REFUTING IT. WHAT TO DO? WELL
> ALLARM MAKES THE PUBLIC ACCEPT  even demand that there
> be a government program and also the tax to get the
> money to spend.

Unfortunately doesn't happen.  Under the Bush government NOAA actually
had it's budget slashed year over year though more recent budgets have
brought back funding; NOAas position was popular with the public, but
unpopular with the politicians in charge.  Guess who wins in this
situation?  You think the public will hold the government accountable
for slashing NOAAs budget?  Most people don't even know it happened...

> quiet reason however usually does not
> a tax levied or nor a program started. so the
> politicians go with scientist x,y,z, and b since they
> wish to have the money to spend.

Huh ?

> 10 once a proposal is
> made then the politicians can not allow the alARM TO
> DIE DOWN So they and the media keep quoting the
> alarmist and iqnoring the descenters.
>  11. it becomes
> poplitically incorrect to oppose "conventional wisdom,
> consensus is declared. descent is pretty much
> censored.

Guess that explains why we're still sending troops to the middle east......

> 12 time passes and the costastropee does not
> happen but, after many years no one seems to remember
> that the decenters "told them so."

Ah, yes, back to the "it happened once so it's going to happen again"
line of reasoning....

> yes it is simplified, but no it is not absurd to say
> that the castastrophe predictions are media driven.
> quite literally most have been.

Sure, that's why I keep telling you, go back and read the scientific reports.

> i have read about several in history and lived through
> one myself. when one reads history it is one thing but
> then add in living through an event and when you see
> something that looks similar the light goes on in your
> head "i have seen this before." do you ignore what is
> being presented? no, of course not, but you do look at
> it with a heavy dose of sceptisism.

Sure, but don't let the skepticism mislead you into thinking that the
reports are wrong.  Sometimes there actually are icebergs in the path
of the ship and no amount of hubris is going to save you.

> you young people can accept everything you are given
> pretty quickly, but, forgive us old goats that have to
> factor in our experience and give things a much harder
> look.

Don't be so quick to make assumptions.  Some of us old goats actually
do our own research instead of listening to books popularized by the
far right press.

-- 
Peter Hunsberger

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy