From: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Newsgroups: sci.energy,talk.environment
Subject: Re: Greenpeace Research
Date: 27 Jan 93 13:30:24 GMT
Reply-To: jamesh@aifh.ed.ac.uk (James Hammerton)
Organization: Dept of AI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <1993Jan26.044218.27523@uxmail.ust.hk>, ph_yfyau@uxmail.ust.hk (Yau
Yat Fai) writes:
# Jym Dyer (jym@mica.berkeley.edu) wrote:
# : =o= It is folly to believe that *any* research is going to be
# : free from bias, especially from the bias of the funders of that
# : research.  All research should be looked at with a critical eye,
# : and compared with similar research.
# 
# 
# Yes!  Then the main point is, towards which side lies the bias?
# I would say that Greenpeace releases bias on political reforms.
# Scientists usually strive on finding out solutions to problems; 
# but the Greenpeace usually strive to tell YOU how the problems
# are solved.  So, with a second thought, have we ignored the
# processes of decision making in national context or even in global
# context?  On another side of a coin, scientists usually strive on
# finding out the causes of phenomena; but the Greenpeace usually 
# strive to tell YOU "what" phenomena we are to expect.  Again, have
# we ignored other possibilities?

These are certainly valid points. I would like to add that in the
Global Warming Report, the essays are largely the writer's own views,
and they often include sections dealing with various objections raised
against them, or in the case of the chapter on the construction of the
global warming models the uncertainties involved and the limitations of
the models. In short the writer's have no obligation to toe the
Greenpeace line and have at least made an attempt to consider other
viewpoints. Yes I would say this report is biased in the sense that it
provides the evidence to back up the case that Greenpeace makes in the
final chapter. But it does draw on many sources, and provides
comprehensive documentation of the claims made by the authors and
the issues involved. 

 
# Above are suggestions, not criticisms.  If Greenpeace releases
# include "second thought on decision making in national context"
# and/or "possible alternatives rather than plain FATE", readers
# will feel more comfortable with the to-be-bright-to-believe bias.

Well, the report suggests what Greenpeace believe will happen if
nothing is done, and then presents essays on the potential solutions
to the problem of global warming, where the people writing the essays
are writing inside their own fields, and a final chapter summarising
Greenpeace's own views. This does mean that not only are the problems
identified, but the solutions are offered, and Greenpeace's own views
in the face of the supplied evidence are made clear.
 
# 
# : =o= We know that R. J. Reynolds studies are wrong because their
# : conclusions can't be reproduced by other researchers, not just
# : because it's conducted by R. J. Reynolds.
# 
# : =o= Likewise, it cannot be assumed that Greenpeace studies are
# : wrong because they're conducted by Greenpeace.  Such a thing
# : would need to be shown by comparing their studies with those
# : of other researchers.
# 
# 
# Yes!  Greenpeace releases are seldom technically wrong.  The major
# problem reading Greenpeace releases is one of eliminating those
# exaggerations.  (Say, 20 odd mpg diesel engine cars can develop
# into 100 mpg cars in 20 yrs! Astounding, isn't it.  I think fossil
# fuels will no longer be used to drive engines 20 years later.)
# My impression is that the Greenpeace releases are always ever
# exaggerating.  So, every time I read a Greenpeace release (or
# report), I will tell myself: there is something wrong.  You now
# see what is WRONG with Greenpeace!  And what is WRONG with R. J.
# Reynolds.

Of course here you are referring to the press releases, and I think
that there is little doubt that exaggerating occurs. However the 
Energy without Oil report, may well provide some hard evidence to back
up the claims made about the cars. Not having seen it I can only base
this on the publications I've read, both provided comprehensive
documentation to back up their arguments. 
# 
# : {{ The rest deleted }}
# 
# 
# Think about it, Jym.  Sometimes I feel quite impressed by the work
# of the Greenpeace and its collaborators.  Usually, they find ways
# to make the world more beautiful, more lovely, more comfortable;
# but they forget to make their work beautiful, lovely and 
# comfortable for readers!

I think Greenpeace's main problem is that they seldom seem to provide
any backup to substantiate what their press releases say. Also as many
on this group will testify, they do exagerrate in the releases and
have made mistakes(sometimes pretty serious ones). How this occurs
I don't know, save to say that I get the feeling that some parts
of Greenpeace don't manage to communicate with others. Also the
press releases will presumably have been designed for maximum impact so
exagerration shouldnt come as a surprise. Also there are issues where
there's a lot of evidence to suggest things are going seriously wrong.
Press releases concerning them, may not be exaggerating compared to
the evidence, but people unaware of that evidence won't know that.

# Regards
# 
# Yau Yat Fai
# Department of Physics
# Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

James

-- 
*  James Hammerton               *  If Pascal is equivalent to the     *
*  Email: jamesh@uk.ac.ed.aisb   *  mini-metro,then ML is the concept  *
*                                *  car where steering is done         *
*                                *  recursively using the gearstick.   *
Newsgroups: sci.energy