The actions of the IPCC, the various studies which have been shown to have been fabricated or skewed [see Watts Up posts passim] or selectively presented have harmed science more than any other single aspect of late and have rendered shaky that oft-used expression: “It’s been scientifically proven.”
That also comes out in the Knight Science article on anti-GM people. Problem is, as an anti-GM person myself, I was not reading this as a devotee but as a potential detractor and man, there was so much bias in the article. In fact, in quoting one guy, the author even inserted the word [good] to bias the reader towards the quotee.
That is not good journalism and it’s even worse science.
The substance of the anti-anti-GM rant was sound though. The antiGM people have used shoddy science to establish the tumour making capacity of GM foods. I’m not saying it won’t cause tumours but this science, sadly, does not establish it.
In fact, it establishes that we can’t trust either science or scientists anymore. I’ve always been down on capital S Science as a political tool of Them [the Royal Society] in undermining Christianity and the orderly maintenance of society, whilst supporting small s science as a sound way to look at natural [physical] phenomena.
Now that’s not so certain. Successive exposes by both sides on issues such as this only serve to weaken how much be can take scientific conclusions as reliable these days. You know the quote I often put in about this:
We believe a scientist because he can substantiate his remarks, not because he is eloquent and forcible in his enunciation. In fact, we distrust him when he seems to be influencing us by his manner. [IA Richards: Science and Poetry, 1926]
Well, it seems it’s not just a persuasive manner at issue here but sheer dishonesty.
As in politics.