Good science is plain
There is at present a tug-of-war raging online between evidence and ideology with truth the loser. Pitted against privately loud and colourful voices of science denial, quiet public science rarely gets a shout, jeopardising rational discourse and policy-making. With a single, regulated platform for professional and citizen publishing we can change this. A voluntary scheme of plain pages would significantly reduce the ability of loud and colourful privately-funded voices to drown out bias-free public science. Plain fact will take centre stage. You can help make this platform the gold standard for science communication: please read our infographic below and share it with as many friends and colleagues as possible, and sign up.
INFOGRAPHIC
(pictures speak a thousand words)
Support from academia:
“It is [an idea worth thinking about].” Professor Ugo Bardi
LFG 
Funny how “skeptics” don’t or can’t deter 100s of other alarmist AGW papers from getting published. But when one is retracted suddenly it’s the skeptics’ fault.
I agree with this – choosing stuff is way over-rated.
I vaguely remember some peer-reviewed science which proved 31.78 years of the average lifespan were spent on 1.Wondering what to choose 2. Choosing 3. Wondering if we’ve chosen wisely & 4. Working out how to get rid of what we’ve bought/caught/stolen/married etc.
In the 1970s, I lived, briefly, in a Soviet Bloc country and have fond memories of the sheer time-efficiency of everyday tasks like going to the supermarket. It took only about three minutes to walk through the local supermarket and notice the only products available on the day in question were salami, black bread & tinned fish. Admittedly, buying a loaf of bread took 30 minutes of paperwork – but the whole experience was far more efficient than the hell of 2 hours in Sainbury’s wondering whether to have full-fat/semi-skimmed/one-percent/skimmed/homegenised/microfiltered etc etc etc.
The whole point of society, surely, is to appoint wise and intelligent leaders who can relieve us of burdens like choice.
I think the environmental movement understand this and are doing there best to help.
I’ve noticed some commenters here who show the sort of leadership skills that we need to guide us onto the right path.
Green Angel Chloe would certainly be an interesting choice, with her firm opinions and extensive experience in the educational field.
On the other subject of Prof “Crocodile” Lewandowsky – I’m in a bit of a quandary now.
I had several quite serious diagnoses of worrying mental illnesses from Prof Lew.
Now that his paper’s been condemned as invalid & unethical – do I have to give them back, as it were, or can I just hang on to them and try to work them through.
It’s quite stressful.
Interesting dilemma: perhaps the solution is to get second and third opinions from other disinterested climate scientists?
Well, that’s easy enough for you to say Marcus – but where can I find people I can trust with my mental health?
I believe Prof Lew has a colleague at Bristol Uni, called Tamsin, who is very sympathetic towards the denialist condition and believes in supportive treatment, rather than punishment – but I don’t think she’s a psychologist. Would you risk putting your mental health in the hands of a well meaning amateur?
On the other hand, there’s a young man called Dr Adam Corner at Cardiff who, I believe, is a qualified denial psychologist and seems a bit less shouty than Lew – but I’ve seen some pictures of him on the internet which give me concern –
I’m getting quite desperate now and I fear I might be heading in the same direction as the late Australian lady Alene Composta – one of the earliest known martyrs of the climate concern movement. Prof Lew and his close friend John Cook both did their best to help her – but sadly, they arrived too late.
The whole story is here –
http://verdanthopes.blogspot.co.uk
I defy anyone to read it and not be moved.
I’ve read it several times and it still leaves me shaking uncontrollably.
Yes, I met Alene once. She had very bendy fingers, whatever that condition is called. That’s pretty much all I can remember sadly. Poor Alene.
“once again a reputable scientific journal caved in to pressure from climate denialists”
Tut tut Marcus, you’re making stuff up again, you shouldn’t do that you know, it’s naughty and your mummy will be cross.
Here is the relevant section of the Frontiers in Psychology retraction.
You will note that is specifically denies that it is a result of pressure from those you insist on insulting by referring to as “climate denialists”.
As we published in our retraction statement, a small number of complaints were received during the weeks following publication. Some of those complaints were well argued and cogent and, as a responsible publisher, our policy is to take such issues seriously. Frontiers conducted a careful and objective investigation of these complaints. Frontiers did not “cave in to threats”; in fact, Frontiers received no threats. The many months between publication and retraction should highlight the thoroughness and seriousness of the entire process.
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
In fact, as stated in the retraction, the paper was withdrawn because it was classed as invalid and unethical, and despite a request to the authors to address these defects, the second attempt was not significantly improved.
But hey, you knew that all along, didn’t you?
Funny how you “Liberals” find lying comes so easily, Goebbels would be proud of you.
Just as a matter of interest, how do you expect to win the hearts and minds of the uncommitted – assuming that is the purpose of your efforts and you are not just being insulting to those you disagree with for the sake of it – if you are so transparently and demonstrably mendacious?
It’s a mystery…
catweazle666
I can hardly believe what I’m reading here. Prof Stephan “Crocodile” Lewandowsky is a world renowned leader in the field of Denialist Psychology with degrees, awards and plaudits from grateful citizens sprouting out of his arse (as it were – I’m not being coarse here -antipodeans appreciate the scatological approach).
It’s well known that publishers are just a bunch of money grabbing shysters in sharp suits – living the life of Reilly on the backs of underpaid and overworked academics, slaving away doing the work we all know is essential it we are to achieve a really progressive, sustainable, inclusive and non-judgmental society (in a very real sense).
Lew’s been around academia long enough to recognise that you don’t triumph over the dark forces of conspiratorial denialism without all using all the tools provided by your innate intellectual superiority.
The true story here is – he’s outsmarted the denialist swine by being even more tricky, devious and ruthless than them and he’s not going to let a few lily-livered Swiss pansies in button-down shirts screw him around.
Go Lew! Sue the bastards – all of them. Your Uni’s already told you they’re fully insured – so it’s only a matter of time before the world is forced to recognise you as possibly the biggest thing to come out of academia since Ward Churchill.
Pingback: IPCC: Things are very very bad, including the climate | ☁·
You should be a part of a contest for one of the highest quality sites on the web.
I am going to highly recommend this site!
If some one wants to be updated with newest technologies afterward he must be
visit this website and be up to date every day.
Pingback: Climate Hub | ☁·