Oppose Scientific Conspiracies. Support Open Acceess.

One of the lessons of climategate is that anti-scientific conspiracies and sloppy work can exist even in science.

The cure for these diseases is sunlight.

Therefore, I support Obama’s Office is Science & Technology Policy trial balloon of forcing scientists who do work with federal funds to make the results of that work freely available. Not only would this make life harder for global warming cultists to hide behind paywalls costing of thousands of dollar per user — it helps science as an institution.

Therefore, I hope that President Obama pushes forward with plans for open access science.

8 thoughts on “Oppose Scientific Conspiracies. Support Open Acceess.”

  1. “Therefore, I support Obama’s Office is Science & Technology Policy trial balloon of forcing scientists who do work with federal funds to make the results of that work freely available.”

    You know what? I support this effort as well, but I am not expecting to find what you are hoping to.

    From Realclimate bloggers commenting on Computerworld.com

    ‘”More interesting is what is not contained in the emails,” the site noted. “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to ‘get rid of the MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”‘

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141258/Global_warming_research_exposed_after_hack

    Furthermore, what are your thoughts on disclosing the funding and research of “private” research projects that receive funding from energy companies that are federally subsidized?

  2. Hey Jeffrey,

    Thanks for the comments.

    Regarding the Georoge Soros stuff, the only people I see peddling it are far-left bloggers trying to attack a strawman. It’s part of a pattern of deception by the ACGW cult..

    Furthermore, what are your thoughts on disclosing the funding and research of “private” research projects that receive funding from energy companies that are federally subsidized?

    I think all sources of funding, as well as tools used, should be cited in papers as a matter of academic ethics. I may be in a minority about this.

  3. It’s really hard to tell the difference between ACGW talking points and sarcasm.

    Thanks! I needed to be grinning this afternoon. The above did it for me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *