3 Responses

  1. avatar
    Beatrice Murray at |

    I find it rather odd that the linked Science page shows that the paper has been retracted, but the full text is still available and has all the appearance of a published paper. Surely if it should never have been published then it should now be removed.

  2. avatar
    Eli Miron at |

    The author claims that “Scientific dishonesty in science…. is giving a free kick to the legions of climate change deniers..”.
    this is a dangerous accusation. There is a large number of prominent scientists who diasgree with SOME aspects of the “accepted” theory of global warming. Does the author imply that ALL of them are dishonest ?.

    Science is based on agreement, disagreement, discussions, arguments etc. This is important to the future of science.

    Galileo was also a “denier”, wasn’t he ??.

    What does the author think about the following ?

    1. avatar
      Bruce Boyes at |

      Many thanks Eli for your comments. In regard to the issues you raise:

      1. My full statement in the article is “Scientific dishonesty such as this acts to further undermine already eroded public confidence in science, giving a free kick to the legions of climate change deniers, evolution deniers, and anti-vaccination campaigners.” This statement does not equate to saying that scientists who disagree with “SOME aspects of the “accepted” theory of global warming” are dishonest.

      2. No, Galileo wasn’t a denier. Quite the opposite actually: he pioneered the evidence-based scientific method followed by modern scientists (and by RealKM Magazine). See https://skepticalscience.com/climate-skeptics-are-like-galileo.htm

      3. In regard to the Observer article you linked, the claim made in the article that NOAA falsified data has been debunked by FactCheck.org, see http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.