Damned Liberal Scientists!

Hinderacker:

The moral of the story is that the leading scientific journals have been taken over by liberals who value politics over truth. So any time you see a news report on a "scientific" journal article that ostensibly has political implications, you should greet it with skepticism.

When I posted on Michael Fumento's article earlier, I stated that the take-home message from his article was "because some articles turn out to be wrong we should mistrust all peer-reviewed articles." To which Fumento commented:

That's funny. I read that piece over several times and so no such "basic point." In fact, I wrote the piece. I think it's probably best interpreted literally, without your "basic points" added.

The conclusion would have done nicely: "Bottom line: First, there needs to be an outside body of peer-reviewers not picked by the journals themselves. Second, the media need to stop treating medical and science journals as somehow sacrosanct. Like seemingly everything in today's world, they've gone political."

That sounds a bit more reasonable than the alleged "basic point," now doesn't it?

Maybe I should have added the word "liberal" into my satire but I don't really see that much difference. We could go on and on about the supposed global cooling scare and the appropriateness of the methods used in the Lancet study, but that's what Tim Lambert's site is for. Michael, we know you come by here every once in a while late at night: you do agree that the purpose of your article was to bash peer-reviewed papers where the data happen to clash with your pre-formed opinions, right? Or did you e-mail John and tell him all you were proposing was a new form of peer-review?