06 February 2017

How Experts Damage Their Own Credibility

This story is illustrative to many current debates taking place, especially in the United States. Per the UK Daily Mail:
  • The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
  • It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
  • America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
  • The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
The key words and phrases in the DM piece which provide insight into this issue are:
  • "exaggerated"
  • "influence"
  • "broke its own rules"
  • "misleading"
  • "sensational but flawed"
  • "blatant attempt to intensify the impact"
  • "they had manipulated and hidden data"
  • "flawed conclusions"
We could go on and on, but you get the idea. No real surprise. Of course, not all "experts" have an agenda beyond their area of expertise but, sadly, many do. They don't follow the facts to a conclusion. They already have their conclusion and construct their "facts" accordingly. Personally, I simply never blindly accept the premise that "experts" are always right. I could cite numerous personal experiences easily refuting that notion. Some of these experiences were quite serious and weighty. Some even involved life and death situations. I'm sure most readers have had similar experiences. One thing I have noticed is that the older I get, the easier it becomes to recognize real experts from phony ones. 

 By the way, does anyone see a correlation with other "academic" disciplines and "experts", hmmm

Read. Think. Draw your own conclusions. Experts are, quite often, quite wrong.

2 comments:

HankC said...

my 'conclusion' is based on the idea that the Daily Mail is the UK version of the National Enquirer.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Hank - not quite as bad as the NE, but point taken. But getting beyond the flawed messenger, the message is nonetheless credible. In fact, the NOAA is going to investigate the claim:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/6/noaa-agrees-review-claim-data-manipulation-climate/

Does that alter anything for you?