Letters

Topic: Professional Standards

March 2010

Dear Editor,

I refer to the “Final Report” of the Congressional Science Fellow in the December GSA Today*. Mr. Szymanski’s report clearly shows his bias with respect to the proposition that mankind is responsible for global warming. I also noted that the GSA is in the process of reframing its official position on global warming and its causes, a position heretofore firmly biased in the same direction as that of the Congressional Science Fellow.

I am a lifetime geoscientist whose geological training and experience have led me to examine all scientific findings with a degree of skepticism. The Saint Gore school of global warming extremists, never willing to be debated by competent scientists with a differing perception, have run aground in the light of disclosures of rigged scientific data sets. This disclosure does not really surprise me, especially when a reasonable examination of the available data (in unblemished form) requires a scientific mind to seek and test alternative explanations for global warming other than mankind’s CO₂ contribution to the atmosphere.

The real shock of this exposure is the revelation of intentional data rigging by alleged professional climatologists — and among them, their geologist fellows. Have we, in our search for the truth, become so susceptible to political pressures — and financial rewards — that we are quite willing to engage in the prostitution of our science? What becomes of our profession if we fail to cleanse our ranks of those who freely engage in intentional falsification of data and their interpretation? I, for one, desire to be disassociated with such charlatans and to be counted by my fellow Americans as a searcher for the truth who can be counted on to cling to our professional standards.

Yours very truly,
Richard P. Palmer, a 50-year GSA member

[ original article | next letter ]