View Single Post
Old 14th Jun 2011, 13:18
  #8121 (permalink)  
chuks
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 1,560
I was just looking further into...

Dr. Mörner, an interesting figure!

He got a rap over the knuckles for misrepresenting his status with a professional organization, INQUA, putting himself forth as its head when giving an address, when he had been replaced as head. Too, the current head of the parent organization noted that INQUA now disagreed with him! So, to put it very briefly, he appeared and gave a talk as though he was heading an organization which (presumably) agreed with him when the facts were that he no longer headed it and it disagreed with him. Hmm....

It turns out that in addition to his supposed expertise in the matter of rising sea levels (most scientists seem to think that they are rising steadily), Dr. M. also is an expert on dowsing. (On the other hand, he has not bothered to go pick up that million-dollar prize on offer from James Randi. Too busy doing other things, I guess...)

The linked interview (Who is EIR anyway? Is there a connection with Lyndon LaRouche there?) is a bit disjointed. The best bit in it, for me at least, is the good doctor's obvious upset over the three Austrian (not Australian, my mistake there) scientists, when 'Austria doesn't even have a coast!' Golly, does this mean I shouldn't be reading Hard Times unless I have fallen down a mine shaft?

I am sorry, but on further reading, none of it done using Wikipedia this time, Doctor M. just comes across as 'one more dingbat.' The poster of Big Al is going back up and I am reverting to my previous status as a blind believer in the whole AGM mischegoss. Still, you cannot say that I did not at least try to drink the Kool-Aid.

Edited to add:

EIR: Executive Intelligence Review, a publication backed by Lyndon LaRouche (a notorious right-wing dingbat of the highest magnitude, a total loon and a freaking moonbat). I wondered about how that interview link just went right into the interview without the usual mast-head identifying just who was doing the interview. The interviewer did seem to be rather uncritical, ignoring some obvious inconsistencies in what was being said, when it seemed pretty obvious to me that Dr. Mörner was at least disorganized in what he was saying. He might have had some valid points there but he was all over the map, plus the idea that 'if your country doesn't have a coastline, you have no business studying anything to do with the oceans...' is clearly nonsensical. If that is logical then any male gynecologist should be automatically disqualified.)

That sort of interview, when you read it, raises more questions in my mind about interviewer and interviewee than it answers. You have a journalist who cannot pose logical questions talking to a scientist who cannot give logical answers, with the resulting mish-mash being passed for publication by an editor who seems to find it okay and then linked here as support for a dubious theory!

I think that any fair-minded person who reads this, knowing nothing much of the science involved, would tend to agree that Dr. Mörner's not very good at making his case in a logical, persuasive way. Okay, it was a nice picture of a tree, but that was about it.

Then we can move right along to the practice of dowsing. There is no support for that in main-stream science so that any scientist who is a public advocate of it, well... at least you would expect him to back up that advocacy with very strong evidence. I guess I would expect him to say something like, 'Surprise! Dowsing works and I have shown this by having done the following experiment...' James Randi sort of went to town on him over this one, plus pointing out that million bucks waiting for him to do what he says he can do, make dowsing work. So far, no go, so 'no surprise,' to me at least.

Bear in mind here that I am not picking on Dr. M. completely at random. He was cited by one of your own as a strong advocate of the anti-AGW argument, a top man in his field and a voice of authority. Well, it turns out that the evidence cited is tainted by association with Lyndon LaRouche, that your top man was censured for misrepresenting himself, and that he is on the record as believing in the non-scientific practice of dowsing without being able to show evidence for having that belief.

If this is the sort of stuff that shows how most scientists are faking it, well, this guy is more-or-less a documented faker! Are you 100% sure that you want him on your side?

You know, choosing this guy as your paladin should be about like me saying that 'Whatever Al Gore says is fine by me and you should all believe in him too!' Really, I want to say that the data seem to support the AGW hypothesis; if Al Gore wants to go along with me on that, so be it, but the case would be stronger if he stayed out of this, politician that he is.

When such a dubious figure as Dr. M. is deliberately chosen as an advocate for what you guys want us to believe, what does that say about the quality of your critical thought, your ability to weigh evidence? I think it says quite a lot, actually, but quite a lot that is negative. Are you all still happy to stand behind Dr. Mörner after what I have just posted? Never mind AGW, what about dowsing? This guy is a strong scientist?

Last edited by chuks; 14th Jun 2011 at 14:03.
chuks is offline