"97% of scientists who actually work in this area" seems like the statistic you want to worry about, doesn't it?
"97% of scientists qualified to comment on the issue" is even worse for the anti-warming movement.
It amazes me that this needs to be pointed out. Using a deity's name in a secular and preferably angry context is one of the fundaments of swearing, by deus.
The "plum pudding" model was one of several competing models at the time. That's why it has a contemporaneous name, because there were alternatives.
....or perhaps your model of the world where all systems perfectly equilibrate in response to perturbations is not accurate and has misled you.
So by "the left" you meant "tabloid newspapers"?
I'm not sure what grounds there are for reciprocal discovery in this instance. A libel suit has never been an opportunity for the defendant to play detective and attempt to prove their accusations.
"We'll discredit all information quantifying the problem" doesn't strike me as a great way to engineer your way out of the problem either, for that matter.
The FOI doesn't allow you to sue someone for access to their records soley on the pretext that you're going to trawl for unspecified and potentially nonexistent wrongdoing.
I don't think you know what a cargo cult (or by extension, "cargo cult science") is.
It's not the court's purpose to air dirty laundry of people you don't like soley because there is dirty laundry to be aired.
If I'm reading that right, the material wasn't lost, it just couldn't be accounted for after deliberate disposal because they made some seriously incorrect assumptions about how it would sequester itself in the environment. So that's a different issue.
Thank you! My practical chem is really ropey.
War in the region that eventually became Germany predated the Cold War by just as long, it doesn't mean it was a good idea to put down a wall and say "you people are now freedom-loving Westerners, and you people are now hard-core communists".
The specific example you give is exactly my point: Sunni-Shia tensions weren't resolved by forcing them both to live in the same country with one group explicitly emplaced as the leaders of the other, if they were then there wouldn't be an outright civil war on.
The study did not have military sponsorship. As the headline states, one of the authors received funding from the military for another project studying social contagion. Regardless we should be unnerved by the idea that there are leading experts on social manipulation out there getting their ideas from studying Facebook and then taking their expertise to the military.
Adam I Kramer, the Facebook analyst responsible for the part of the research considered ethically dubious, is the first and corresponding author on the paper.