How the Internet Makes Scientific Fraud Harder

This week in “Science Lies and Videotape I show how  internet posters  shredded the notion that the left is pro- science, the right is anti-science  and exposed more scientific fraud.  As The Telegraph’s  James Delingpole correctly observes:



What the internet has proved in these debates, time and again – from Glaciergate to Amazongate to Polarbeargate – is that when the rebellious amateurs of the sceptical blogosphere go head to head with the climate establishment, the bloggers always win. Not as a result of invective or snarkiness or any of the other things that bloggers also do quite well: but on the actual hard science and raw evidence. Look at almost any tussle between, say, WUWT on the one side, RealClimate on the other, and you’ll notice that when it finally boils down to the irreducible truth, the side that emerges triumphant is the sceptical one, not the alarmist one. It’s partly because the facts are on our side (so we jolly well ought to win if we’re doing our job even remotely properly), but also because, being the underfunded underdogs, we’ve been forced to raise our game to a higher standard than that of our rather complacent, smug opposition.



At the suggestion of my friend and guru Charlie Martin, I add this to the list of reasons to be sceptical of the AGW storyline:

28% of the IPCC AR4 WGI findings are wrong.


Trending on PJ Media Videos

Join the conversation as a VIP Member