1. integrityofscience
  2. Columnist Calls for "Honest Disagreement," Holds Straight Face

Columnist Calls for "Honest Disagreement," Holds Straight Face

By ianhart on August 14, 2007.

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
Spin

More like this

It's that time again: "Broken" peer review
Having spent the last couple of days dealing with pure woo, such as germ theory denialism and naturopathic quackery, I think now's as good a time as any to move on to a more serious topic. One of the most important aspects of science is the publication of scientific results in peer-reviewed…
How do researchers perceive peer review?
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…
Beware the bashers of peer review
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…
Open peer review: an idea whose time has come?
Over at the Nature blogs, they're soliciting comments and opinions about open peer review: The goal of any change in the peer review system must be to improve the quality of review, where quality is determined by two distinct functions: filtering manuscripts for publication in a given journal; and…

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.