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 in both places.
However, scientists closely associated with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the central figures of which are alarmists (and many of them not scientists at all but government bureaucrats), have largely taken control of the peer review process at most academic journals that deal with climate and climate change and have essentially barred skeptics’ articles from publication there.
Using “Legitimate scientists publish in academic journals” to discredit a YouTube video (or a paper published in something other than an academic journal) leads quickly to some unintended consequences.
On the one hand, those who use it against a video (or paper) by a “climate skeptic,” claiming that if the person has done a YouTube video (or published an article outside an academic journal) he therefore must not be a “legitimate scientist,” wind up having to conclude that Dr. James Hansen, one of the most widely cited and popular climate alarmists, must not be a legitimate scientist, since he’s done plenty on YouTube.
On the other hand, they also are stuck having to admit that Dr. Roy W. Spencer, one of the most widely cited and popular climate skeptics, is a legitimate scientist, since he’s published in academic journals (as in the many articles listed on his website).
Consider this analogy: Under Communist rule in the former Soviet Union, “legitimate” scholars (scientists, historians, medical doctors, etc.) published in state-approved organs. But those organs were controlled by the Communist Party. So, many scholars who were critics of Communism were barred from publication in the state-approved organs. Consequently, they turned to underground, or “samizdat,” publication. Should they have been ignored for that reason? Did that prove that they weren’t credible?
“Legitimate scientists publish in academic journals” is a cunningly disguised version of what logicians call genetic fallacy (Can’t be believed because it comes from Podunk.) or appeal to authority (Can’t be believed because not by a Ph.D. in the appropriate field). It’s the lazy man’s way to avoid trying to grapple with an actual argument.
Featured image, scientific reviewer, from National Institutes of Health, public domain.
Deon Barnard says
Thank you for this article. Being an amateur climate observer and reading many articles and books on the subject, I often have to face -” the lazy man’s way to avoid trying to grapple with an actual argument”. Sometimes just the body language of friends when sharing my observations, has much to say of their stance on the subject. I often quote and point them to the websites such as friendsofscience.org, CO2 and to Cornwall Alliance, among others, to prove a point. I think ‘John Ordinary’ would rather listen to lame arguments on the media than to find out the truth for themselves. I came across this saying: “If it is new[often times], it is not true – if is true, it is not new”.