ON SCIENCE

Sharon Begley

Bring On the ‘Reality- Based Community’

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
NEWSWEEK's 20/10
NEWSWEEK's 20/10

Our decade-in-review project recalls the highs and lows of the last 10 years.

Obama's Promises
Obama's Promises

Is the new president fulfilling his campaign pledges? Or falling short?

The Decade in 7 Minutes
The Decade in 7 Minutes

Video: A fast-paced review of the best and worst moments. Don't blink.

Accidental Celebrities
Accidental Celebrities

From Levi Johnston to Elian Gonzalez, these people never expected to be in the spotlight.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Minexiii @ 07/25/2009 12:54:08 PM

    My English class thinks this article lacks credibility. What do you think?

  • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/19/2008 1:59:22 PM

    "It is exactly disinterested empiricism that drove Bush to make the stands he did. "

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  • Posted By: TheOracle @ 11/19/2008 1:04:40 PM

    The EPA is scientifically dishonest, yes, under the Bush administration, but no, not more so than under Clinton. They have redefined "peer review" to include panel discussions among those who agree with their defacto religion. The warmists have further destroyed any scientific credibility by attacking "skeptics", where skepticism is a scientific duty, especially as an element of peer review.

    This article is absurd. The political bias is evidenced by the broad use of the word "poisonous" and the vicious personal tone.

    I spent a few months several years ago re-analyzing a study, funded in part by the EPA, and purportedly peer reviewed. The gross math errors that were made served to support some contorted findings that magically furthered an EPA agenda. These errors were typical of many "environmental scientists", whose duty to their self-aggrandizing objectives overwhelm any due the scientific method. Much like "computer science" and "political science", this ain't science at all.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse