Feb. 5, 2007: Scientific concensus

Update Feb. 8, 2007: I had misdated this as Jan. 5, not Feb. 5. Now corrected. FHTR



Double click to enlarge this screen capture and "back" to return.

Is there broad scientific concensus as Ms. Watt-Cloutier claims?




I neither know Ms. Watt-Cloutier do I wish to pick on her, but she is brought forth to speak for those natives living in the North and is touted as an "expert" on the views of Northern natives so, it must be expected that we might question her knowledge and her credentials. As soon as I point out that eminent scientists disagree, I turn on that dreadful political broadcaster, the CBC, and who is being interviewed (again, a re-run) but Ms. Watt-Cloutier, a social scientist. Her position is treated (memory, oral history, claims of that special native knowledge and respect for the land -- not questioned) as though her opinions were unquestionably valid and equal to the knowledge of scientists who have pursued advanced degrees, accomplished much, demonstrated a degree of scientific objectivity, written and had their writing vetted by their peers in peer-reviewed scientific journals and so much else. I find that suspect. Hannah Gartner was interviewing Watt-Cloutier and what I heard was simply a chance for Ms. Watt-Cloutier to reminisce, to advocate and to emote. Frankly, she sounds very good if she is never questioned; we all do. As a social scientist, she believes that the US and particularly George Bush, have had much more of an impact than is reasonable to believe. No-one questions this nor her views in the CBC program. It's soft-shoe interviewing, the kind of interview designed to keep a voting block onside for the return of those who would throw more money at the native problem, satisfy the chiefs and advocates, and then be free to pillage the north for what they may profit by. Cynical? Yes, but I have read enough to be so.

When I read further (and still, not nearly enough), I find that scientists are questioning the UN's IPCC summary as being politicized, a political document, and not in the spirit of the science which lies behind it which is in the full report which is much less conclusive in its findings and blame. The full report will come out late enough that the summary will have set the agenda for whatever the UN and their very vocal activists want. The UN IPCC report summary has created dismay and dissension amongst scientists who worked on it, not just scientists outside the UN study prone to criticism. See these posts from last week:


# Feb. 4, 2007: Science- Traditional Knowledge-Politics
# Feb. 3, 2007: Environment, Russia, China, Sudan
# Feb. 3, 2007: Climate, Spin, Awards, Politics