The Scientific Paper Is Obsolete

By James Somers – Re-Blogged From The Atlantic

The scientific paper—the actual form of it—was one of the enabling inventions of modernity. Before it was developed in the 1600s, results were communicated privately in letters, ephemerally in lectures, or all at once in books. There was no public forum for incremental advances. By making room for reports of single experiments or minor technical advances, journals made the chaos of science accretive. Scientists from that point forward became like the social insects: They made their progress steadily, as a buzzing mass.

The earliest papers were in some ways more readable than papers are today. They were less specialized, more direct, shorter, and far less formal. Calculus had only just been invented. Entire data sets could fit in a table on a single page. What little “computation” contributed to the results was done by hand and could be verified in the same way.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Stop the Personal Attacks and Answer the Climate Questions

By Dr. Tim Ball – Re-Blogged From WUWT

When you realize you are losing an argument, it is common to abandon the argument and attack the person. It is one of many forms of arguments called ad hominem, or to the person. A disagreement between two people makes an ad hominem argument easy to notice. The loser and the winner are clear, and a shift in the tone and focus of the discussion is relatively apparent.

The structure and method chosen to create the myth of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) guaranteed an ad hominem situation. The evidence against the hypothesis was overwhelming from the start. The only question was left academic. Can you have a collective ad hominem, that is a personal attack on a group, or does it only apply to an attack on an individual? The answer is not about the number but the nature of the attack. When it is an individual, the attack occurs because the debate on the issue is lost, and that is true when it is a group.

Continue reading

Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse

Dr. Jeffrey Foss – Re-Blogged From WUWT

More honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of good

“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.

“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.”

Continue reading

Rooting Out Scientific Corruption

By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Recent actions show reform is in the wind, but much remains to be done, especially on climate

Dr. Brian Wansink recently resigned from his position as Columbia University professor, eating behavior researcher and director of the Cornell “food lab.” A faculty investigation found that he had misreported research data, failed to preserve data and results properly, and employed dubious statistical techniques.

Continue reading

Physicist Says Evidence of Human Role in Climate “Is Lacking”

By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From WUWT

In a new book from Physicist Ralph B. Alexander, Science Under Attack: The Age of Unreason, he sees  “abuses in science”. Excerpts:

Evidence and logic are lacking in many areas of public debate today on hot-button issues ranging from dietary fat to vaccination.

In Science Under Attack, Dr. Alexander shows how science is being abused, sidelined or ignored, making it difficult or impossible for the public to form a reasoned opinion about important issues. Readers will learn why science is becoming more corrupt, and also how it is being abused for political and economic gain, support of activism, or the propping up of religious beliefs.

Continue reading

NYT: Global Greening, Faster Plant Growth, is Bad

By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From WUWT

h/t Howard “Cork” Hayden – According to New York Times all the commercial greenhouse growers who artificially elevate CO2 in greenhouses to more than double natural atmospheric levels are making a terrible mistake, because increased CO2 does not produce better crop yields.

Reproduced with permission, copyright Dr. Craig D. Idso.

Continue reading