Nature magazine’s credibility takes yet another hit

Nature magazine blew it again, and unfortunately, these days that’s no news at all.  It’s just more shonky science from the AGW crowd … and people claim the reason the public doesn’t trust climate scientists is a “communications problem”? It’s not. It’s a garbage science problem, and all the communications theory in the world won’t fix garbage science.

Once again the science journal Nature has got its tits in the wringer.  Willis Eschenbach says he took a lot of flak last year for his post saying that the global 50% drop in phytoplankton claimed by Boyce et. al in Nature was an illusion. Eschenbach had no data to back up his claim, just personal observation and some common sense. His post today on Watts Up With That? has vindicated his faith in observation over peer-reviewed science.

Keeping his feet firmly on the ground Eschenbach goes on to say at the end of his piece:

The moral of this story? Well, the moral for me is that trusting my experience over the “science” of high-powered scientists living in an ivory tower far above the ocean worked out well … this time.

But the real moral is that scientists need to pay more attention to the “laugh test”. I know when I first heard the Boyce claim, I busted out laughing … and when our experience is that strong in saying that science is wrong, it’s likely worth checking out.


4 Responses to “Nature magazine’s credibility takes yet another hit”

  1. 1 Brian H 26/04/2011 at 1:22 am

    To hell with all that dignified responding stuff. Faces need to be rubbed into this one, hard.

  2. 2 Piers Corbyn 26/04/2011 at 6:26 am

    Superb stuff. Well done.
    Yes quite a few of the ‘TOPS’ as they imagine they are have actually very little substance behind their BELIEFS when it comes to the debates they fear – those involving observational data. Their defences of nonsense both at events in the Royal Society and Imperial College when I have raised certain scientific points in the last year or two, have been laughable.

  3. 3 Paul in Sweden 26/04/2011 at 11:23 am

    “and people claim the reason the public doesn’t trust climate scientists is a “communications problem”?”

    The alarmists really believe that if they just find the right shade of lipstick for that CAGW pig everyone would believe.

  4. 4 meltemian 27/04/2011 at 7:16 am

    Let’s hear it for ‘gut-reaction’ and the laugh test.
    Well Done indeed.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive

%d bloggers like this: