Some inhabitants of the Ivory Tower are using peer review – a process that helps scholarly journals decide what to print – as a shield to hide behind. Delegitimizing public input about publicly-funded science is arrogant and counterproductive.
Academics insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But scholarly journals are actually littered with muck.
Libraries define intellectual freedom as the public’s right to examine all points-of-view. These climate scientists are trying to stifle alternative perspectives. Part 2 of 3.
A climatologist urges her community to stop defending Michael Mann.
Michael Mann’s boss at Penn State University – Dean William Easterling – falsely claims to be a Nobel laureate on his CV.
29 people have submitted a statement regarding the Keystone Pipeline. Purely political opinions are being camouflaged as ‘scientific judgment.’
People who believe there’s an urgent problem behave accordingly. Climatologist Michael Mann plays games.
Where’s the scholarly press release highlighting Al Gore’s “longstanding ties to tobacco companies?” Where’s the study announcing that WWF’s tobacco ties extend back to the 1960s?
In an official statement, the IPCC says it’s improper for any of its personnel to describe themselves as Nobel laureates. But the statement is all but invisible on the IPCC’s website.
A lead author of the IPCC’s ‘hard science’ section is a Green Party candidate and deputy leader.
Is it any wonder that young climate scientists behave badly? Their elders set the example – by hurling insults at dissenters.
When I describe the surreal world of climate science to people who are strangers to that world I know it sounds fantastical. But there are strong parallels with the recently destroyed economies of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
When six police officers visit your home for three hours, confiscate your computers, and mess with your phone line it’s little comfort to be told you aren’t a suspect.
Newly released e-mails shed light on internal IPCC politics.
We’re supposed to trust the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s conclusions because it relies on peer-reviewed scientific literature. But many of the people who run scientific journals also write IPCC reports. This is a circular, incestuous process.
Greenpeace has seen the light. Years after it became the norm in climate science to hoard & hide data, Greenpeace is now complaining about such behaviour.
Can you point me to science textbooks, government documents, or websites of reputable organizations where the Michael Mann hockey stick graph appears?
Climate activists have long argued that scientific research that has been peer-reviewed is reliable, trustworthy & true.
According to insiders, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change selects its authors via a secretive process. Nothing prevents scientists belonging to certain schools-of-thought from dominating the reports that get produced.
It’s difficult to read Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion book and not conclude that something is terribly amiss – in the world of science, in scientific publishing, and within the bowels of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
For those of us who think science is about being open to new ideas and perspectives, Michael “hockey stick” Mann isn’t the kind of scientist we’d want our kids to grow up to be.