[Coral-List] Trust peer-reviewed articles rather than the press

Richard Dunne RichardPDunne at aol.com
Sat Mar 5 05:27:49 EST 2016

To continue the thread here is a link to two 'Letters to the Editor' in 
the London Times which the second of the articles provoked. These should 
be seen by the same readership thus presenting an alternative viewpoint.

Thanks for the link. As with Ove H-G's article in 'The Conversation' the 
problem with these responses is that they will only be read by a 
fraction of those who may have seen the original articles. Like all 
newspaper publishing, the damage is done when the story goes to print. 
Short of a retraction of the article(s) (has this ever happened?) 
Letters to the Editor are probably the best that can be achieved. In the 
'ClimateFeedBack' blog Howard Browman expresses disappointment at having 
his words cherry-picked. Surely he can't be so naive to expect this 
would not happen when he agree to talk to a reporter? When we court 
publicity there are unintended consequences.

Richard Dunne

On 05/03/2016 09:43, Jean-Pierre Gattuso wrote:
> Richard,
> You say that I missed the point but you wrote: "I have long felt that 
> we have been guilty of 'over egging' this aspect of the global warming 
> debate in the face of very little hard evidence". I believe the guilt 
> mostly lies with poor reporters.
> Anyway, here is the link to the climatefeedback.org analysis of Ben 
> Webster’s article “Scientists are exaggerating carbon threat to marine 
> life” in The Times:
> http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/scientists-are-exaggerating-carbon-threat-to-reefs-and-marine-life/
> Jean-Pierre Gattuso
> Typed on a crippled keyboard. Sorry for typos and brevity.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 4 Mar 2016, at 22:04, Richard Dunne RichardPDunne at aol.com 
> <mailto:RichardPDunne at aol.com> wrote:
> Jean-Pierre misses the point. I neither said I didn't trust peer 
> review nor that I trusted the newspapers. Whether I do or not is 
> irrelevant (both have their faults).
> It is the general public whom we are concerned with here. They do not 
> read scientific papers - they read the national and international 
> press. The fact that this is now being reported in the press in this 
> way indicates that whatever the true position, there has been failure 
> along the way.
> Richard Dunne
> On 04/03/2016 17:15, Jean-Pierre Gattuso wrote:
> Coral-listers,
> Richard Dunne should trust peer-reviewed articles rather than the press,
> especially newspapers which have a poor scientific record.
> climatefeedback.org has analysed Ben Webster’s article “Scientists
> are exaggerating carbon threat to marine life” in The Times. It
> estimated its overall scientific credibility to be ‘very low’. The
> analysis should be published later today. I will send the link when it
> will become available.
> Also note that the scientist quoted in this article, Howard Browman,
> claims that Webster quoted him in a misleading way. Finally, the issue
> discussed, ocean acidification, is distinct from “global warming”.
> Both just share the same cause (the rise in atmospheric CO2).
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jean-Pierre Gattuso |http://www.obs-vlfr.fr/~gattuso 
> <http://www.obs-vlfr.fr/%7Egattuso>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov <mailto:Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov>
> http://coral.aoml.noaa.gov/mailman/listinfo/coral-list
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jean-Pierre Gattuso | http://www.obs-vlfr.fr/~gattuso 
> <http://www.obs-vlfr.fr/%7Egattuso> | @jpGattuso

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Coral-List mailing list