Despite the fact that it’s at Cracked, this is a very good article. Note in particular the thing about many scientists not actually understanding statistics, which is particularly a problem with climate science. It has a good bottom line:
Just to be clear: It’s not that you should suddenly stop trusting science in general — without science it would be impossible to distinguish charlatans from people who have actual wizard powers. But there’s a big difference between accepting scientific consensus and just blindly believing everything said by a guy in a white lab coat.
It’s also important to avoid falling into an overhyped misleading “consensus.”
A good read generally. But, they seem to fall into their own trap on issue #2. Who were the 127 professors selected? How representative were they? Were they, considering how bright they should be, able to deduce the intent of the study, and helpfully play along to reach the desired conclusion? Were there possibly other prejudices involved, e.g., did the female names tend to suggest a particular ethnicity?
*cough* Michael Mann *cough*
Bart’s comment notwithstanding, what’s wrong with Cracked?