Reputational smears in the UK gutter press
August 2014
Recently I have been subjected to disgraceful attacks on my reputation by The Times, Daily Telegraph and Daily Mail. It is a classic tactic by the right-wing
gutter press to smear any qualified scientist or engineer such as myself who dares
to question government policy and expertise. The press is aided by the
oil industry and by many
UK earth science academics, some of whom depend upon industry and
government for research grants.
I have in the past worked as an oil industry consultant, as I am not
against conventional oil exploration. But over the last three years I
have done no such commercial work. In its place I have received a total
of £1,600 in fees for my work on nuclear waste disposal and fracking.
This does not even cover my purchase of essential books, maps and
software. My proper commercial rate for this volume of work would have
been more like £100,000.
My work is completely independent and meticulously researched, to a
higher standard, and with much more detail than is usual for
peer-reviewed scientific papers. This is so that the technical detail
can withstand cross-examination and be used, if need be, as evidence in
a legal challenge. All my reports are online, but no-one has ever
challenged my findings in any detail. Instead, some pro-industry,
pro-government geologists resort to ad hominem attacks,
without even bothering to read what I have written. I work in effect pro bono, because I
believe in honest meticulous science, undistorted by commercial and
political pressures.
The Geological Society awarded me a prestigious prize, the Lyell Fund,
in 1985. I obtained the rank of Chartered Geologist, also awarded by
the Geological Society, in 1990.
The Geological Society is now by great coincidence concerned about my twice wrongly claiming the
status of Chartered Geologist. I was astonished to learn that by ceasing to pay annual fees in
1996, it meant that I was immediately thereafter deprived of chartered
status. These fees amount to some £230 per year, and are nothing less than an
unjustified monopoly tax, or a sort of temporary licence to use the
status. The Society's claim that the fees pay for Continuous
Professional Development is disingenuous, because this scheme only
started up in 2014.
© David Smythe
