I think it's great that these various authorities are paying attention to errata on web sites, but heavens-to-Cthulhu, I wish we didn't have to bother them.
When I fact-checked Jarrah's NOAA contact, the guy was noticeably annoyed. Not just at Jarrah, but also at me. The undertone I got was, "Oh great, what have I been dragged into now?" When I asked him if he was aware of what Jarrah had done with his statements, he pretty much said he didn't want anything to do with it. And I don't blame him. Contrary to the egotistical beliefs of conspiracy theorists, most real scientists etc. don't sit around thinking of the various cockamamie ways their work can be taken out of context, or of what "damage control" will need to be done. Conspiracy theorists fly so far under most of these guys' radar; it's almost insulting to talk to them about it even if it's to set the record straight. Defending real science against woo is not necessarily what got these guys interested in their professions anyway.
And further, the real world doesn't consider web sites necessarily the be-all and end-all of knowledge. The real world still very much uses actual libraries and actual printed manuals, handbooks, and findings -- some of which are, for example, proprietary. If someone says you have an error on your web site, the response is likely to be, "Eh, so what, no one should be relying on that anyway." Yes, they'll be happy to receive the correction (free proofreading is not a bad thing), but the notion that there's some nefarious force changing information on the web is pretty laughable in a world where the web is still an emphemeral source.
Jay, I can appreciate where they're coming from. For you and any of the rest of us who may find ourselves in a similar situation in the future, it might be good to solicit their support with something they care as much about as much as we do, regardless of their lofty milieu:
education. While their work is intended for their own peers, they are certain to appreciate the possibility of it being quotemined and misrepresented by conspiracy theorists who pollute the Internet with it and, in turn, corrupt young minds. I would suggest making such inquiries on behalf of the next generation of potential academicians rather than just to discredit conspiracy theorists or generally "set the record straight".
It should also be mentioned that such quotemining is not as trivial or localized as they may at first perceive. They need to be made aware that this nonsense spreads among laymen on the Internet like a new infectious disease, and it can endure there for decades. Those laymen are often juveniles and most of the adults are probably parents. A scholar's attitude may be that the people who "matter" will understand. We need to encourage them to see how the sheer numbers of laymen who get the twisted misinformation matter, too. Good examples of highly respected scholars who recognize this in areas related to this topic are Carl Sagan, Brian Cox, and Neil Tyson.
Another area where science has been under attack for many years is creationism vs evolution. Stalwarts in that field who recognize the importance of what the layman hears are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Stephen J. Gould, and again, Carl Sagan.
I'm reminded of the line from the movie,
Gladiator, by Senator Gracchus, (portrayed by Derek Jacobi),
"I don't claim to be a man
of the people, but I am a man
for the people."
Our cloistered academic elite need to think more like that, sometimes.
