Re: [Marxism] Cockburn deals with the Larouche problem

["Joaquin Bustelo" <jbustelo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pathetic. 

See, a bunch of German scientists opposed relativity, and probably
peer-reviewed each other; and since a bunch of climate scientists agree with
the peer-reviewed human induced climate change hypothesis, THEREFORE they're
probably all wet too.

Cockburn's disinclination to practice reporting is also on display. "I
strongly doubt that Jaworowski knows much or indeed anything about the more
sinister and odious aspects of the LaRouch enterprise, and sent along his
paper because they asked him to." Isn't writing journalism for Counterpunch
and the Nation what Cockburn does for a living? Does he really think there
is that much public demand for his *doubts*? Has he forgotten how to use a
telephone, a web browser, or Google? Why doesn't he try to find out, instead
of telling us what he doesn't know?

To speed him on how quest, I offer the following URL: 
<http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/art_search2.php> 

If he selects Jaworowski from the author choices, there he will find a list
of 11 papers published in 21st Century Science and Technology from 1993 to
2003. I also found three more recent papers surfing the site, though I did
not do an issue-by-issue contents search. And I found seven in Executive
Intelligence Review, which seems a much more hardcore cultist LaRouche
publication, by the simple expedient of googling his name and restricting
the search to that one web site.  

So that's a total of TWENTY ONE --count 'em-- different papers over a period
of 14 years that the good doctor has contributed to the LaRoucheite
publications. And while this time I tried to be a little more thorough than
in my original search, when without hardly any effort I spotted eight, there
are probably some that I missed. This makes Cockburn's speculation that he
simply "sent along his paper because they asked him to" risible.

Moreover, it shows irresponsibility is now Cockburn's journalistic method.
Maybe in the first article where Jaworowski was cited, Cockburn could claim
that he simply took the claims about Jaworowski from a trusted source and
should have attributed them, a mistake, but a relatively minor one, and even
an understandable one, given the space constraints of a printed column.

But in an article responding to the controversy, he certainly should have
taken the time to at least google Jaworowski and LaRouche, which should have
disabused him from the impression that it was just a one-off thing. And
since this is web publication, the space constraints of dead-tree publishing
do not apply.

At any rate, the LaRouche tie, in and of itself, does not prove Jaworowski
is wrong about the scientific issues. But in this regard, Cockburn does make
a significant admission: "The article in the Larouche magazine merely
repeats the claims and supporting arguments that Jaworowski has published in
other journals. I cited one of these, 'Do Glaciers Tell a True CO2 Story',
The Science of the Total Environment, 144, 1992) pp 227-284."

That is significant because that article was refuted at the time by Hans
Oeschger, one of the leading CO2 ice core scientists, who not only claimed
that Jaworowski was *mistaken,* but that he was *irresponsible* because
Jaworowski simply did not know what he was talking about. 

Now, that a different scientist has a different take on things does not ipso
facto show Jaworowski was wrong. But when that scientist was one of the
leading researchers in the field, now deceased, a guy who not only received
prestigious prizes in his specialty, but now has one named after him, and he
is responding to someone who has no experience in the specific discipline,
and points out that Jaworowski's critique is based on outdated information,
talking about problems that others identified and overcame years ago, that
starts to get pretty convincing.

And when other scientists in the past few years take Hans Oeschger's
critique from the early 1990's and essentially validate and expand it, and
not only that, but also carefully document how Jaworowski omits, misleads,
misattributes, and makes counterfactual statements, the case against
Jaworowski starts getting pretty overwhelming.

The icing on the cake is when you start looking at some of Jaworowski
articles in the LaRoucheite rags. The whole thing about lead in gasoline was
an unfounded scare. Chernobyl shows nukes are safe. Small doses of radiation
are good for you. The analysis of historical CO2 records and the data
derived from ice core samples aren't just *mistaken* but a conscious fraud
designed to perpetrate and anti-science, anti-economic-development political
agenda. Fossil fuel use has nothing to do with rising CO2 levels in the
atmosphere. And so on.

What are the chances that Jaworowski is right on all these things? And what
are the chances he is in reality a crackpot who, if he turns out to have
been right on something, that would have been by accident?

His most recent effort is headlined, "C02 is the greatest scientific scandal
of our time" and claims that the IPCC's May scientific report was held up
for three months so that it could be changed so that it would not "conflict
with what politicians said beforehand." This, he says, proves the IPCC's
"lack of scientific integrity and independence."

This as opposed to Jaworowski, who highlights Bush's commitment to
environmental research. "During the past six years, the President of the
United States devoted nearly $29 billion to climate research.... This was
about $5 billion per year, more than twice the amount spent on the Apollo
program ($2.3 billion per year), which in 1969 put a man on the moon."

Scientific critics charge that Jaworowski plays fast and loose with the
facts, and this article confirms the accusation. The comparison of 1960's
dollars to dollars at the beginning of the 21st Century is an apples to
oranges comparison. According to Wikipedia, "The cost of the [Apollo]
program is estimated at $135 billion (2006 dollars)." That's more than 4 and
a half times the amount Jaworowski claims Bush spent on climate research. 

Moreover, any idiot knows that the comparison is invalid, so Jaworowski
fails to mention he is comparing dollars from four decades ago to those of
today, trying to hide his swindle.

This is not the methodology of a scientist, not even a wrong-headed one
obstinately holding on to a mistaken hypothesis that the data tends to
disprove, never mind a brilliant one courageously defending a correct
position against the mistaken opinion generally held by his peers.

This is the methodology of a hack propagandist for a right-wing political
cult -- and, frankly, a not too clever one, else he would not have attempted
such an easy-to-spot and easy-to-prove fraud as his claims about the Apollo
program and current environmental research budgets.

In his critique of Jaworowski, Hans Oeschger said Jaworowski's paper was not
just "incorrect but irresponsible." Cockburn's continuing defense of
Jaworowski, without any indication that he's made any effort to evaluate
Jaworowski's writings, affiliations and standing in the scientific community
is equally irresponsible. 

"But at least there is symmetry." (Zathras)

Joaquín





________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism