Hi Keith.
Sorry if you took my previous long winded reply as a direct
reply/criticism - it wasn't intended that way.
Instead, it was a broader essay I posted to my blog as as the
culmination of thoughts that have resulted from the dialogue here, as
well as at tdiclub.com, and in real life. (For example, the lambasting I
refered to occurred over at TDIclub, not here. And the bit about junk
science came up at dinner the other night.)
So while it was inspired in part by the thread here, it should really
have been sent to the list as a new thread. I didn't mean to set up a
strawman or put words in anyone's mouth (e.g. the Barton witchhunt
comment). Again, sorry about that.
Anyway, did you notice the column Krugman published the very next day on
intelligent design? That's the type of issue I was trying to speak to.
Clearly I missed the mark. :(
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html
I don't disagree with you one bit that the corporate disinformation
machine has been exceptionally successful at promoting their agenda. And
yes, I agree that merely promoting good science isn't enough,
particularly given the American media's misguided attempts to provide
"balance". But that having been said, as a scientist, I had to reaffirm
my faith that the process does in fact work. (And yes, I use the word
faith intentionally.) It may not work as perfectly as it should (cf
Kuhn), but it does work imperfectly (cf Sagan).
That's what I was trying to say. If that makes me idealistic/naive, so
be it.
jh
Keith Addison wrote:
Hello John
Keith, Bob, Andrew et al.
Respectfully, I need to disagree with Keith and go with Bob on this one.
David Pimentel may rightfully deserve scorn for his repeatedly
releasing skewed reports long after the errors have been pointed out.
However, he should not be attacked for doing so,
I did not say he should be attacked. I said he should be questioned, and
I provided the questions, and my previous post (which you've copied
below) provided a link to it. Here, again:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, & hydrogen energy efficien
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, & hydrogen energy efficienc
We want to know why he does it. On whose behalf is also a good question.
That is, science is self-correcting and already has a culture to deal
with incorrect results, be they intentional or accidental.
For every example of it that you can point to I'll point to another that
wasn't self-corrected.
I've just been saying that seeing the government as a bumbling dolt
might be a dangerous delusion, and failing to see the ever-swelling
influence of corporate spending on science is similarly dangerous.
Especially since there have been so many peer-reviewed studies of it and
its effects (some of which have been posted here before).
Rely on science's self-correction if you want to, but in these
circumstances I'd put about as much credence in that as in chemical
industry self-policing of self-formulated pollution controls (ie what
we've got now, more or less - plenty of examples of that in the archives
too).
It's not even happening in that arena, as I said - it's not scientific
enquiry, it's a skilful and effective publicity campaign. Would your
scientific self-correction (albeit 20 years late with 20 years of abuse
of the public interest in the meantime) make 100% sure, as does the
Cornell publicity team which is at Pimentel's disposal, that it'll get
picked up by AP and get good placement in the LA Times? If not it'll be
useless as well as too late.
As noted by Carl Sagan, yet another iconic Cornell professor:
"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a
really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would
actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them
again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should,
because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it
happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that
happened in politics or religion."
Frankly however, with respect to Dr. Sagan, I wouldn't hold my breath
waiting for David Pimental to come around given his past
intransigence. If Kuhn was right, we may have to wait another couple
of decades for Pimental to stop publishing his misleading reports.
Still, to blindly lambaste David Pimental (and frankly, any scientist
we disagree with) is to move the discourse from the rational to the
emotional.
Blind lambasting, John? There've been some jeers ("Yours in jest"), but
it's me you name first, apparently without checking what I'd said, which
is neither blind nor a lambasting, nor emotional, nor has it ever been
since I first covered this at JtF four years ago. Nor will you be able
to find any instance of my blindly and/or emotionally lambasting "any
scientist I disagree with".
It's you who's been blind, in not checking before flinging these
accusations, in taking such poor aim, and indeed in offering a
"solution" that's so severely blinkered.
And that is simply unacceptable.
Just what I was going to say.
"Junk science" is not a label to be capriciously applied to research
that has implications we don't like. It's unacceptable whether we're
talking about the right and climate change or the left and
sustainability of biofuels.
Instead, the best way to expose flawed calculations or conclusions is
to refute the logic used to arrive at the conclusion and to rebut the
argument on its merits. Problem is, that's tough to do as it requires
in-depth knowledge and lots of time.
Not so, the salient facts have been provided many times, based on solid
research done by real scientists who do have the in-depth knowledge and
use it responsibly. As the data I posted shows, not for the first time.
Instead, its far easier just to blast the messenger, but that doesn't
make it okay. The witch-hunt Congressman Barton is leading against
Michael Mann is only one such egregious example.
Are you comparing us to Congressman Barton's witch-hunt against Michael
Mann? I'd like an answer to that please. What's up with you, eh? Bad
hair day?
Malcolm Gladwell wrote Thomas Kuhn's legacy was that he taught "the
process of science was fundamentally human, that discoveries were the
product not of some plodding, rational process but of human ingenuity
intermingled with politics and personality--that science was, in the
end, a social process."
Kuhn may be right, and science may be a flawed human process, but
frankly, it's the best we've got. And personally, I'd rather put my
faith it in.
Naive. Your view of the problem leaves out all the important bits.
Keith
jh
Keith Addison wrote:
Hello Bob, Andrew
Normally I'd agree with you Bob, but not in Pimentel's case, that
time was long ago, and now Andrew's response is not inappropriate.
Pimentel merits little better than scorn and derision
Andrew,
I know you said it in jest, but the unfortunate effect of your
sarcasm regarding David Pimentel, one of the nations' outstanding
scientists, is to support the ignorant critics of good science who
argue that, "if I believe in a proposition, then anyone who
presents evidence that contradicts my belief is a malicious fool
and not to be believed".
It is true that a few pseudoscientists acting as industry shills
will (for a fee) produce a "scientific study" supporting any
industry-desired conclusion, but your implication that Pimentel is
such an Exxon shill is blatant slander, and I am ashamed to see it
on the Biofuels site.
I assume that you wish ethanol's EROEI (energy return over energy
input) to be positive, thus making it a useful energy source as we
approach the end of fossil fuels. So do I - and so would lots of
other folks. I'm sure also that David Pimentel shares that wish.
The difference between you and Pimentel is that as a scientist, he
says, "It's a great idea and I hope it's true, but what if it
isn't? So let's run the numbers and seek the truth of the matter.
If it turns out the EROEI is negative, we would be commiting a
cruel and expensive hoax on the nation to propose ethanol as an
energy solution."
Not so, sad to say. Pimentel has long been aware that the data he
uses is outdated and wrong, but he keeps using it anyway. Implying
that he's an Exxon-et al shill is not blatant slander, the question
has to be asked why he continues doing this, and asked of his
publishers too. This is peer review? I think not. It certainly is
not science. It's propaganda.
I am as disappointed as you must be in his analysis showing a
negative EROEI. And I look forward to additional valid studies
testing and challenging his conclusion.
Those have been to hand for a long time, more and more of them,
debunking every aspect of Pimentel's claims. Pimentel takes no
notice, neither do his publishers.
But to lampoon his work because you don't like the color of - was
it his socks? - is not a worthy act on your part.
Well, I don't know, I suppose we can take his socks about as
seriously as the rest of him.
Nothing new here - we've been discussing Pimentel's repeated and
rather successful disinformation campaign since early 2001. As John
said when he posted this latest bout, he does it every year.
Please see these recent messages, to put it in perspective:
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52605.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, & hydrogen energy efficien
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg52756.html
Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel, & hydrogen energy
efficienc
Best wishes
Keith
I'm sure you can do better. I hope you will.
In all sincerity and hoping that your future jests will be more
benign,
Bob A.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Biofuel@sustainablelists.org>
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 4:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Cornell on ethanol, biodiesel,& hydrogen
energy efficiencies
Michael wrote:
This press release below produced the AP story that follows it.
July 5, 2005
Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and
biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang
Chris Hallman/University Photography
Ecologist David Pimentel, shown here pumping gas, says that his
analysis shows that producing ethanol uses more energy than the
resulting fuel generates. Copyright © Cornell University
[snip]
Sorry for the late reply on this one, but with dress sense like what
was shown in the picture how can anyone take this bloke seriously?
I ask
you. Also with that posture and the look on his face, has anyone
checked
for a pulse? It reminds me of an episode of "The Goodies" where they
where shown using the Russian Politburo as glove puppets - aahhh I see
it - if you squint at the part between his left leg and the car I'm
sure I see an arm with an Exxon logo on it.......... ;)
Yours in jest,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000
messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
--
John E Hayes, M.S.
Instructor, Dietetics Program, DIET 203 / DIET 215
Doctoral Student, Nutritional Sciences
University of Connecticut - 326 Koons Hall
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / 860.486.0007
_______________________________________________
Biofuel mailing list
Biofuel@sustainablelists.org
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever:
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html
Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages):
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
