No, I was talking about this one, I mistakenly added the “s” on the end:
I hadnt actually heard much of the John Edwards political campaign & any controversies except the extra marital affair.]]>
Monckton on the other hand sells newspapers. People seem to like Monckton for the showbiz element, and don’t really care much about the specifics of what he’s saying as long as it sounds like something that agrees with their general world view.
He is is similar to Bjorn Lomborg. Quite enigmatic & entertaining. They draw people in like the Nuremburg rallies, Jonestown ( cool aid), Benny Hinn & John Edwards. People rarely ask questions & ignore that little voice that says so much here just isnt adding up.
It makes me wonder how to deal with the Monkton effect
I believe he is dealing with the Monckton circus himself far better than we ever could. With statements like this on the Alex Jones show.
2:42 “They still intend to take freedom & democracy away forever & president Obama & the administration will do everything they can to make sure the UN re- the global government is cemented into place, so that your constitution will no longer matter & so that freedom, democracy & prosperity will be gone forever”]]>
Nice selective audio, Ove. I was there and can say that I agree with everyone else who saw your performance – totally unprofessional for a scientist. You tried to hijack the Q & A session, and while your selective audio says otherwise, I’m sure there are plenty of mobile phone videos to provide evidence to your unprofessional behaviour.
Yeah, you’re sure there is evidence that supports you even though the evidence available does not. How typical of a “skeptic”.]]>
So Phooey, would this incestuous, corrupt backslapping occur in EVERY scientific discipline do you think, or just the one that you are ideologically opposed to?
On the topic of lack of women, you dont think it would have anything to do with that fact that there are far more men who take on science as a profession than women? Here in Australia they have been actively campaigning in schools for years to halt the declining numbers of men AND women taking on science as a profession, let alone women.
If the peer review process is deeply flawed and hopelessly dated. What do you suppose we replace it with? Set up a WUWT/Climate Audit website for every scientific discipline & let the amateurs have it? A dumbing down of scrutiny so that if it doesnt make sense to the layman, then its no good?]]>
People like Hansen, Mann, Santer, etc (including some who blog here) love to surround themselves with huge numbers of coauthors, sometimes two dozen — sort of like a cheer squad section!
The contribution of most of these ‘authors’ is invariably highly obscure and simply the reflects the success of the core authors (read little Napoleons) in building up their acolyte numbers to further degrade the (possible) independence of any peer review.
These largely male mutual backslapping networks (admittedly sometimes including the occasional token female), the existence and nature of which existence was brilliantly discussed by Wegman, further distort the already deeply flawed and hopelessly dated ‘peer-review’ process.]]>