Thursday, March 31, 2005
The politicization of science and the failure of peer review
Yesterday, TCS published an essay by Dr. Pat Michaels that critiques a publication in Science, the premier US primary publishing venue for scientific articles. What is important is that the comments Dr. Michaels makes are those of a good reviewer. The conclusions of the paper, unchallenged, indicate support for global warming. However, as Dr. Michaels points out, if one takes a different approach to the validity of the data, it does not necessarily support such a conclusion.
I have had the opinion for years that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) who publishes Science, has been more atune to political correctness than scientific "truth". Here we have in no uncertain terms the demonstration that it is so. Not only are the editors corrupt but so are the reviewers. Almost the entire science establishment is now corrupt.
In 10 to 25 years, we will see the eclipse of American science, the pride of the 20th Century. Some country, more interested in real results than in who is offended, will suddenly deluge the world with a product based on new discoveries that will destroy a major segment of our economy.
Understand very clearly, it does not matter whether it is Galileo suppressed by the religious right, or Joe Smith suppressed by the secular left, whenever science is controlled and acceptable answers dictated, it is no longer science, it is quackery.
I have had the opinion for years that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) who publishes Science, has been more atune to political correctness than scientific "truth". Here we have in no uncertain terms the demonstration that it is so. Not only are the editors corrupt but so are the reviewers. Almost the entire science establishment is now corrupt.
In 10 to 25 years, we will see the eclipse of American science, the pride of the 20th Century. Some country, more interested in real results than in who is offended, will suddenly deluge the world with a product based on new discoveries that will destroy a major segment of our economy.
Understand very clearly, it does not matter whether it is Galileo suppressed by the religious right, or Joe Smith suppressed by the secular left, whenever science is controlled and acceptable answers dictated, it is no longer science, it is quackery.
// posted by Bill @ 7:25 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Dr. Pat Michaels is actually not a very credible source. His work is not peer reviewed and is typically funded by such companies as Western fuels and
German Coal mining Association. Before posting this, did you google his name or check his work?
He is more or less known only for his paid advocacy on behalf of these organizations. Its rather funny to read about his belief in conspiracies to push a politcal view on science when he in fact is nothing less than a creation of that.
some links on this
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200001
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/razor2.html
If you feel I have unfairly quoted from only liberal sources I recommend looking into this matter further and see how poorly his research has held up under any scrutiny besides that of pundits and
people on the payroll.
German Coal mining Association. Before posting this, did you google his name or check his work?
He is more or less known only for his paid advocacy on behalf of these organizations. Its rather funny to read about his belief in conspiracies to push a politcal view on science when he in fact is nothing less than a creation of that.
some links on this
http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200001
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=4
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/razor2.html
If you feel I have unfairly quoted from only liberal sources I recommend looking into this matter further and see how poorly his research has held up under any scrutiny besides that of pundits and
people on the payroll.
delenn, apparently you are saying that since Dr. Michaels does not fulfill your qualifications for a scientist, his comments have no importance. If so, that is the ad Hominum fallacy in its fullest. My comments on Dr. Michaels post are based on what I read compared to my knowledge base as a PhD in chemistry and a continual awareness of the global warming issue.
If you don't believe that GreenPeace, the Sierra Club, and all the other eco-activist organizations don't try to politicize science then I think you have blinders on.
I used to tell my students in nuclear energy that one should read both sides of an issue. What both agree on can be taken as probably true.
The point is that his arguments must be judged on what he says and not on who he is. If the argument is valid, the motivation is immaterial.
If you don't believe that GreenPeace, the Sierra Club, and all the other eco-activist organizations don't try to politicize science then I think you have blinders on.
I used to tell my students in nuclear energy that one should read both sides of an issue. What both agree on can be taken as probably true.
The point is that his arguments must be judged on what he says and not on who he is. If the argument is valid, the motivation is immaterial.
Bill, thank you for explaining why, despite my inestimable eligibility and repeated invitations, I have never joined AAAS. See my full comments here
Post a Comment
<< Home
