The unnamed scientist concluded: «Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of «errors» and worse from the climate
sceptics media side.»
Not exact matches
No such discussion can happen in the mainstream
media, where the unfailing reaction to an error by «their
side» is to note the danger of
sceptics gaining credibility, and plead for an official correction.
Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmfulâ $ ¦ and worse from the climate
sceptics»
media side».
Given the failure of the publisher to show any «error» other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it «contained errors», but for the reason stated in the reviewers» summary: because it was perceived to be «harmful... and worse from the climate
sceptics»
media side».
: The Guardian Newsapaper 2nd Feb, page 7: by Fred Pearce: extreme right hand
side of page under the title «Allegations: Lies, soundbites and hot air — how the
media fell into the
sceptics» trap».