To: Thomas M. who wrote (194439 ) 2/21/2021 11:35:52 PM From: Sam 3 RecommendationsRecommended By bentway combjelly Terry Maloney
Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 355591 FYI, John Droz is a well known kook and liar. Anti-science propagandist falsely claims to be a physicistadirondackdailyenterprise.com John Droz, who grew up in the Adirondacks and still summers here, recently wrote a rebuttal to Dr. Curt Stager’s piece in the Adirondack Almanack (1) where Dr. Stager referred to Mr. Droz as a “climate-change denier.” (Mr. Droz is considered one of the most influential climate-change deniers.) In that rebuttal Mr. Droz falsely identifies himself as a physicist and argues that Dr. Stager, a professional climate scientist, has misused the “scientific method.” It is true that Mr Droz studied physics in college in the ’60s, but his profession has been real estate. He has also been associated with fossil fuel industry-funded conservative think tanks, where he specializes in writing opinion pieces opposing wind farms. (2) His CV is linked to below (3) along with a bio (4). Mr. Droz’s most successful endeavor, however, was as an “expert witness” before the North Carolina legislature, where he convinced the Republican legislators to make it illegal for the zoning commission to take future climate-change-induced rising sea levels into consideration (4). His anti-scientist presentation was a 168-plus slide show (5) arguing that climate scientists are unscientific and are usually wrong for a variety of socio-psychological reasons. He also naively argued that scientists are prone to simple logical errors — such as “correlation is not causation” or not following correct scientific methodology. Failure to follow scientific methodology is a recurring charge in Mr. Droz’s criticisms of people with whom he disagrees. Mr. Droz’s slide show consists primarily of a first-year-undergraduate-level lecture describing science for non-scientists. His point is that not all scientific conclusions should be taken as gospel. Ironically, he commits most of the scientific sins he describes. He cherry-picks the few studies that support his position. His presentation is designed to influence public policy. He plays talking-point word games. He claims that scientists exploit their reputation as objective, non-political truth-tellers to influence public policy and then proceeds to falsely claim to be a physicist. continues at adirondackdailyenterprise.com