They sound good to me. Bring 'em on.
Talk about "moving the goalposts"!
If this actually happens, it couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.
Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
That question is above my pay grade. But I can say that at the university I worked for the word "Elsevier" was used the same way the phrase "convicted child molester" would have been.
I don't know about you, but I go with the data.
Prominent among my fading memories of high school and college science are conservation principles. So the idea that nothing can give rise to something strikes me as really, really weird.
Some reasons are preferable to others.
Another famous result in psychology comes under fire. And the original author worsens his problem:
Following a rather opaque discussion, Strack seems to come close to suggesting that the truth of claims in science can be known even in the absence of statistical support.
Interesting, apparently sober and balanced evaluation of the evidence regarding the heritability of IQ vis-à-vis the controversy over the research of Charles Murray.