The letter is accompanied by a photo of a lone Polar Bear on an ice berg credited to ISTOCKPHOTO.COM. The photo is a fake with the following note in the photo caption at Istockphoto: "This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now."
What does the use of a faked photo say about the scientific credibility of the journal in question?
Wonder why the ABC didn't pick this one up, they do have previous experience with Polar Bears.
Update 10 May 2010. Roger Pielke Jnr discusses the value of getting the facts right - HERE.
"The general lesson here should be that no matter the virtues of the "cause" it does not justify cutting corners or fudging the facts. When errors are found, the proper response is not to shoot the messenger or ask people to ignore mistakes in the context of larger truths, but rather, to just get things right."
Update 10 May 2010 Science post a correction.
Correction
The image associated with this article was selected by the editors. We did not realize that it was not an original photograph but a collage, and it was a mistake to have used it.
http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/05/climate-debate-derailed-scientists.html
ReplyDeleteWhat are the credentials of these scientists? how many of them are actually working in the field of climate science? Who's payroll are they on, and how much funding are they losing whilst we argue the premise of AGW?
Also there is the question of the 'recent attacks on climate scientists'..... errr excuse me but by their very mis-behaviour in fixing and adulterating climate data and hockey stick graphs, they have left themselves open to attacks - read criticisms! Cherry picking of data is not the scientific method!
WUWT has had a look at the backgrounds of a number of scientists on the list. Generally well recognised experts in a number of fields however only about 5-10% are involved in climate research.
ReplyDeleteSee http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/07/marketing-advice-for-mad-scientists/
5% ... thats about a dozen, probably the same scammers that made up the total in WP No1 putting up the CO2 nonsense in the first place in the IPCC.
ReplyDeleteThe others in the list include "scientists" and "well recognised experts" like this fella:
”
William Julius Wilson,
Director Joblessness and Urban Poverty Research Program
“
Keep it clean, note- any comments with profanity will be rejected.
ReplyDeleteComment from CHRIS
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter that they are scientists, or even what discipline they work in. This is just the same old argument from authority. If the evidence for AGW was repeatable and verifiable tinker (bleep) bell could make the case.
The article of the type presented here in Science qualifies more as a 'letter to the editor' type similar to what you find in typical newspapers (think the OpEd section) as a opposed to an actual research article. Images selected for these articles sometimes resemble the political cartoons that accompany OpEd pieces to illustrate a point. In this case, the scientists are worried that climate change could adversely affect wildlife and their habitat. That being said, I haven't read the article yet so if the image was presented as real then there was some sloppy editing involved.
ReplyDelete"What does the use of a faked photo say about the scientific credibility of the journal in question?"
ReplyDeleteAre you claiming the journal put the image there?
The image isn't presented as proof of anything, it's just decoration for the article.
Right. Their actions belie their words.
ReplyDeleteIf the experimental data confirmed CO2-induced global warming, there would be no need to cheat, deny or manipulate data.
"Earth's heat source - the Sun" controls Earth's climate [Energy and Environment 20 (2009) 131-144]
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
> The image isn't presented as proof of anything, it's just decoration for the article.
ReplyDeleteYes. An article decrying the mocking and belittling of science and scientists published a faked image designed to appeal to emotion.
Think about it. You'll figure it out.