Tag Archives: Scientific method

Quote of the week – solving the peer review integrity issue

Posted on March 26, 2013 by

A poll follows. Over at Bishop Hill, he’s listed some quotes from Geoffry Boulton on scientific integrity that I found interesting. He writes (with apologies for posting in full, I couldn’t see any way to excerpt this short article): ============================================================== … Continue reading →

About these ads
Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , | 95 Comments

The Daily Lew – Issue 4

Posted on September 14, 2012 by

LewWorld still has no comment of substance, and in the ‘Skeptical Science’ style, is furiously deleting inconvenient comments that ask questions like “What are you going to do now that the removal of the fake responses shows a conclusion reverse … Continue reading →

Posted in Climate ugliness, Stephan Lewandowsky | Tagged , , , , | 67 Comments

Yamal that hurts! CRU gets touchy, responds to McIntyre and Montford without naming them

Posted on May 29, 2012 by

From the “he who must not be named” department, comes this sure to be future McI-fodder. UEA/CRU responds in a press release, authored by Tim Osborn, an excerpt: =========================================================== Tim Osborn comments on “Yamal, Polar Urals and Muir-Russell” Recent accusations … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review, Satire, The Yamal Deception | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 90 Comments

AGU President on Gleick’s “shocking fall from grace”: “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

Posted on February 27, 2012 by

AGU President’s message We must remain committed to scientific integrity 27 February 2012 During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed … Continue reading →

Posted in Fakegate | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 180 Comments

An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen

Posted on February 21, 2012 by

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Dear Dr. Gundersen; I see that due to the highly theatrical auto-defenestration of your predecessor, Dr. Peter Gleick, you are now the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Scientific Integrity. I’m … Continue reading →

Posted in Alarmism | Tagged , , , , , , , | 203 Comments

The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review

Posted on October 20, 2011 by

UPDATE: see this new story BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review ======================================================= Readers may recall this post last week where I complained about being put in … Continue reading →

Posted in Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature, Climate data, Peer review, Post-normal science | Tagged , , , , , , | 409 Comments

The Spencer and Braswell story goes viral

Posted on September 3, 2011 by

Earlier today I checked in to the WUWT dashboard and was surprised to see that WUWT had the #1 story on all of WordPress.com this morning: Tonight, checking in again, I discover not only is WUWT still near the top … Continue reading →

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , | 91 Comments

Ask and ye shall receive NOAA

Posted on June 18, 2011 by

A while back, I highlighted this, and now comments are open to the public and I’m sure there will be many readers who would like to contribute. NOAA seeks public comments on scientific integrity policy June 16, 2011 NOAA’s draft … Continue reading →

Posted in NOAA | Tagged , , | 82 Comments

RC’s duplicity prods Jeff Id out of retirement

Posted on February 7, 2011 by

Jeff asked me to carry this, since his blog is off the radar since he announced his retirement. It took an RC moment to change that. – Anthony Wrong is Wrong – A reply to the Real Noise at Real Climate … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 143 Comments

“It’s as if our facts were losing their truth”

Posted on January 20, 2011 by

Below is an excerpt from an excellent article in The New Yorker which describes a recognition of curious phenomenon spanning many different fields of science: Different scientists in different labs need to repeat the protocols and publish their results. The … Continue reading →

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 170 Comments