Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the I'm usually leery of picking up stories that other Sbers have already posted about, lest Sb become too much a house of mirrors, but this is noteworthy.
Chris raises an angle on this Juliet Eilperin WAPo story covering this Science mag article.
Chris' issue is that Eilperin interviewed George Taylor of Oregon State (and the State Climatologist of Oregon) about the results. In doing so, Eilperin mentions that Taylor writes for Tech Central Station, which is kind of a reliable free-markets (and for some reason, therefore anti-AGW) science blog.
Beyond Chris' issue ("If you feel duty-bound to describe a source in such a way as to undermine what the source saying in the eyes of the average reader, then should you really be quoting that source at all?"), I have another:
If you searched and searched and the only dissenter you could find to dispute the results not only doesn't work in Antarctica, but also doesn't work in ice-related research, then maybe that's more important to mention than mentioning his affiliation with TCS.
George Taylor's CV and pubs list is here and I can't find the words "ice" or "Antarctica" or anything else that would in any way give me confidence that Taylor is qualified to comment on this article in a serious way. (Refer to Dr. Free-Ride's post on qualifications.)
Come on, Juliet. If you can't find any of the hundreds of researchers in the world who actually work in Antarctica to cast aspersions on the Velicogna article, then just say so. Why find a dissenter just to find a dissenter? There's no need to appear a formula-following automaton for one story, especially when the rest of your body of work is pretty good.
Comments
# 1 | Chris Mooney | March 3, 2006 1:32 PM
Good point. I'm not saying, incidentally, that no skeptics should be quoted. I'm just questioning the treatment of this particular one.
# 2 | John Fleck | March 3, 2006 2:21 PM
One of the questions I often ask a scientist: "Who's smart who understands your work and disagrees with you?" The answer is always illuminating.
# 3 | kevin v | March 3, 2006 4:05 PM
John, that's why you're on the blogroll. hahaha