Continuation from the Black Holes Sing topic:
For over a year now, I have noticed a number of press releases that had either incorrect or misleading information in order to make the work seem more exciting or important. The most notable of these are:
1) Chandra hearing sound from a black hole.
2) Olivine on Mars proves there was never water.
3) Ice thickness in the Arctic Circle is proof that the only habitat of the polar bear is being destroyed by global warming.
I think we've already discussed the first well enough in the previous topic.
The second was actually an incomplete study, and incomplete information from the part of the study that was done. Olivine, on Earth, reacts chemically with water to form numerous other chemicals. So, this was used as evidence that there was no water on Mars. What was failed to be mentioned was:
- It is actually evidence that there was no recent water in the areas of the planet where olivine was found. It does not necessarily infer that the entire planet was dry.
- No study was done at the time of the release to see whether the same chemistry between olivine and water applied at the temperatures and pressures on Mars. That study was yet to be conducted in Hawaii, which is, incidentally, the place where the most abundant supply of olivine is found on Earth (There is no water in Hawaii, either, apparently.
).
- No study was done to find out the reactions of the olivine and/or water with the high amount of peroxides in the Martian soil.
- The age of the olivine, which was stated as quite well-known in the press release, was actually not so well-known. The scientist I contacted said that the age was an estimate, and it could change, depending on whose crater-count you went by. So the age of exposure of the olivine was also questionable.
The study on ice thickness in the Arctic would have been interesting, had they not put an environmentalist spin on it. It would have also been better had they chosen an animal that was actually in danger of losing its habitat due to the changes.
In this press release, no actual biological study was done. It was assumed that polar bears lived only on the ice fields, and that their only source of food was seals. It could also be inferred from the article that ice thickness less than 3 meters was harmful, when actually, that is the approximate ice thickness that the bears (and seals) prefer.
I wrote them a long essay, with supporting facts and figures to show that the polar bears were in no danger whatsoever. They did change the press release: Where it read "The
only habitat of the polar bear..." it was changed to "The
main habitat of the polar bear". And they admitted that no biological study of the bears was ever done. Apparently the extreme play on environmental concerns, even though it had no bearing in this particular case, was intentional. They wanted to fuel controversy, and misinformed the public to do so. Not my idea of good science.
Forum 
