Former Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson was on the PBS NewsHour last Wednesday night, explaining on behalf of his new Risky Business Project how much of an economic catastrophe inaction on solving global warming could be. Since I already had a set of tough questions to pose to organizations that otherwise proceed on the premise of man-caused global warming as settled science, I fired off those to Risky Business Project to see what result I’d get. Watch what happened in this case.
The seven questions I’ve asked over the last six years are quite elemental, basically asking what the organization’s official position is on the work of skeptic climate scientists and related points. As I detailed in my February 6th, 2014 RedState article (where I repeat those seven questions verbatim), most global warming believers never answer at all, one lone company spokesperson all but blurted out that skeptic climate scientists fabricate nonsense, and the organization I was focusing on at that time was doing little more than sidestepping my questions while being caught deleting my comments from their blog.
Slave to temptation that I am, I couldn’t resist sending those same seven questions straight to the media contact for the Risky Business Project, Matt Lewis. He responded quite quickly, with a two-sentence reply:
Risky Business is commited to basing its analysis in sound, peer-reviewed science. There is no other standard for scientific integrity.
A 100% sidestep of all seven questions. But since I was aware of a situation where a rather famous peer-reviewed paper was used for quite influential purposes, but its authors were later revealed as “guilty of 145 counts of fabrication and falsification of data”, I thought it would be worthwhile to point this out to Mr Lewis, while re-submitting the same seven questions. And since I have scientist friends who can speak about the folly of relying on the pure qualifier of “peer reviewed science” as something that supposedly validates a scientific conclusion, I shared Mr Lewis’ email reply to me with them. Without any prompting on my part on what to say, one of those scientists emailed Mr Lewis directly about another example in which a peer review rejected a paper in which a science assessment later turned out to be validated through scientific observation.
Mr Lewis referred to both of our notes of concern in his single reply to us:
Thanks for your interest in Risky Business. I suggest that if you have reservations with the process by which scientific findings are tested and validated, or if you have specific allegations of scientific misconduct (per your note below), you take it up with the National Academies; I am sure you will find a willing audience there.
Meanwhile I’m sure you would understand that I have a fairly busy schedule and am not in a position to answer all the various emails that come my way, so with apologies in advance this shall be my last correspondence with you.
So, I replied quite politely,
I understand busy schedules. I will respectfully suggest that as a spokesman for RBP, you essentially sidestepped my original straightforward questions in their entirety. It leaves the impression that RBP is either unable or unwilling to answer the questions from an ordinary individual such as myself. Is it RBP’s intention that they will continue to not answer those same questions when posed by more prominent persons or organizations, and will such an appearance enhance or undermine the public perception of RBP in the eyes of the larger public?
Just askin’. Speaking for myself, it would be nice if the answers I get aren’t such predictable sidesteps.