[Coral-List] Media and Oil Spill Science
gchallenger at msn.com
Sat Aug 28 14:42:50 EDT 2010
Mr. Challenger is no longer confused. Now I know two Tom Moores who know my job. The point still stands. The determination of whether an opinion is objective should be based on data and evidence and not who they work for on a particular job.
Greg E. Challenger Marine Scientist/Associate Polaris Applied Sciences, Incorporated 12509 130th Lane NE Kirkland, WA 98034 425-823-4841 425-823-3805 fx 206-369-5686 cell visit us at: polarisappliedsciences.com
> Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:27:17 -0400
> From: Tom.Moore at noaa.gov
> Subject: Re: [Coral-List] Media and Oil Spill Science
> To: coral-list at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> CC: gchallenger at PolarisAppliedSciences.com
> To be very clear I think Mr. Challenger may be confused as I am the Tom Moore who works for NOAA and not the author of the referenced post below. As an active responder to to the Oil Spill I have not and will not be participating in Coral List discussions on the topic.
> Tom Moore
> NOAA Restoration Center
> Sent from my wireless.
> On Aug 27, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Thomas Moore <thomas.moore.is at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 3:09 AM, Greg Challenger <gchallenger at msn..com> wrote:
> >> The post below from Thomas Moore at NOAA is a clear illustration of the same
> >> problem I had in my statement about journalists.
> > First (to avoid any further confusion), I definitely am not an
> > employee of NOAA or any other US government agency!
> >> Rather than discussing the merits of the technical views I expressed (or whether a news story is
> >> intended to be accurate), the inclination is to allow a preconception of who
> >> you work for to influence your interpretation of someones' technical opinion
> >> .....or to somehow raise doubt on the technical opinion without actually
> >> engaging in the technical discussion.
> > There was no preconception, but in the interests of disclosure, I
> > don't see why you didn't say "Hey, I work for BP". It would then be up
> > to others to judge your technical merit and impartiality. This would
> > accusations of BP buying up scientists and the Ivor Van Heerden /
> > Polaris public relations video
> > (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kromm/blacklash-grows-against-b_b_665621.html).
> > As for the technical discussion, it's not my area of expertise, but I
> > am intrigued. Several people have contacted me off the list who do not
> > want to go on record in saying that they strongly disagree with the
> > idea that most of the oil has evaporated. I don't think your technical
> > opinion was actually that technical... Can you cite references for
> > statements such as "It is not a hard conclusion to reach since about
> > 30-40% evaporates in the first five days after it hits the surface"?
> >> There is no shame in working for BP. Our mission is to do well
> >> so that we may work again. Should we all have said no?
> > Good to hear. No need to be defensive! I'm simply saying: be more transparent
> > about your position when discussing vested interests.
> >> BP is lucky to have
> >> the private industry experts assisting with response and
> >> assessment strategies.
> > I wouldn't go that far. Money can buy most things, luck has little to
> > do with it.
> > Thomas
> > _______________________________________________
> > Coral-List mailing list
> > Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
> > http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
More information about the Coral-List