It’s the time of the year when voting for best science blog arrives and this year:
“SkepticalScience, which debunks flat-earth attacks on climate science*, has requested to be removed from consideration because it considers the whole process to be flawed.”
Flawed? I thought peer-review was the ultimate path to the truth? Blog awards based on nominations from actual blog readers and writers. That’s as peer as it gets. Oh, but then there’s that pesky “science” term. If you’re against climate change, you’re not a scientist. Wait…..I believe that SkepticalScience blog author fully admits to not being a climate scientist and just regurgitates what peer-reviewed journals say. So the problem is not that there is no science–it’s that the regurgitation of science writings is not as convincing as sites that use data outside the hallowed-halls of peer-reviewed journals. Why? Maybe because the skeptic arguments are actually the most compelling. One would be completely and totally dishonest to claim scientists do not comment on and some write these skeptical blogs. They are just not from the popular crowd over at the peer-reviewed journal joint. Seems these new folks in town are upsetting the traditional social structure of science and that is just not to be done.
How to stop this? One suggestion from the Daily Kos article on this was asking why not set up a panel of scientists to select the finalists. Answer: “The problem is finding a qualified, unbiased panel that would work for free. Most categories aren’t the type that would have experts in their field.” What! These experts do this for money???? I thought just skeptics were the greedy, money oriented type. What do they mean the categories aren’t the type that have experts in their field?
As with any rejection, there were the usual sobs about a “well-financed” opposition (while the experts supporting the theory have to be PAID to defend it….interesting), people just don’t understand what is happening, and of course, the “you’ll be sorry in the end when nature drowns millions of you and fries the rest because you didn’t listen to me” threat. Flashbacks to high school (which is better than preschool, the flashback zone for politics right now….).
Daily Kos ends with “The moral of the story is that we should not be surprised when climate skeptics win best science or even political blog. A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. And well-financed lies travel even faster.” Yes, the lie of climate change DID travel most of the way around the earth before the truth started to make an impact. Fortunately people with passion and not much money began exposing the climate change lie for what it is. Much to the chagrin of the climate change scientists.
*Using an ad hominem attack while writing about science could explain why educated people are losing interest in the so-called “science” of the climate change genre.
(http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/05/1191805/-How-climate-skeptics-win-science-blog-awards for the Daily Kos article)