Today I received this via email: I have seen a meme going around on Facebook that says: “Just so you know, Legitimate scientists tend to publish their research in academic journals, not on YouTube.” What is your take on this? Is does come from a very strong Democrat supporter. The truth is that legitimate scientists publish […]
The Lazy Man’s Way to Avoid Grappling with an Argument Learn More »
So you think of science (or maybe I should say “science”?) as a solid, objective, trustworthy activity? Certainly a whole lot more credible than, say, philosophy, or theology, or fortune telling? Before I go on, let me assure you that I value science (without the scare quotes) a great deal. (Philosophy and theology, too—but not
Who Are the Real Science Deniers? Learn More »
In a blog piece at MasterResource.org, meteorologist Chip Knappenberger presents and discusses the implications of communications from MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen documenting bias in and corruption of the scientific peer-review process against “climate skeptics,” focusing on the case of his recent submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that was refused there
If Peer Review Were a Drug, It Wouldn’t Get on the Market Learn More »
It’s been two months now since Climategate broke. The disclosure of thousands of emails, computer programs, and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the UK revealed scandalous scientific misconduct of monumental proportions–enough that it has crippled the credibility of an entire field of science (paleoclimatology) and seriously tarnished
In Praise of Scientific Piranhas: the Legacies of Climategate Learn More »
