BewaConsensus Science

>--- In ssi_list@... "Arthur P. Smith"
>
>>>http://www.nature.com/nature/links/040108/040108-1.html
>>>
>>>
>
>>>Here's the press coverage:
>>>Study Warns of Global Warming Extinctions
>>>tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040107/ap_on_sc/global_warming_2
>>>
>>>
>
>>Uh, more like, were embarrassed into resigning, from what I heard.
>>Speculation is par for the course, but out-and-out lying and
>>misrepresentation, which seems to be what happened in the Climate
>>Research article, is rather a bit worse.
>>
>I wonder if the editor of Nature will be forced to resign and what
>censure the authors of the piece will face for their conduct?
>
>http://www.techcentralstation.com/010904B.html
>

Uh, Tech Central Station is (openly) funded by Exxon-Mobil and friends.
They have a very clear agenda, and it's not good science. What happened
with Climate Research, AS I SAID in the last note, was the editor in
chief was not allowed to act as any peer-review journal editor in chief
should, by publishing an editorial on future review policies in his own
journal. He resigned in protest. Nature still practices good peer review
policies. Sometimes things are published that are wrong, that's normal
science, and not the issue.

>Here is some stuff on Lomborg's vindication.
>
>http://www.greenwatch.org/news/news.asp?ID7
>
Lomborg runs the Danish institute in question, and is strongly supported
by the current (conservative) Danish government. That's a very sorry
case there. Anyway, greenwatch is part of the "Capital Research Center",
info on it here:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Capital_Research_Center
Let me just quote one phrase: "CRC has also published two recent books
denying that smoking causes cancer."

So I rely on peer-reviewed scientific publications and the statements of
major scientific societies, and you rely on these guys for your
information? I think you need to change the websites you frequent.

Arthur