Free Net Pr0n for All!
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/22cnd-porn.html
Also, Bjorn Lomborg is a doof. He comes to his conclusion then finds evidence to support it, rather than the other way around. That’s not science. (Wikipedia, as per usual, is more articulate.)
Bjorn Lomborg may be a doof, and he is probably wrong, but the scientific community clearly instigated a witch-hunt because his findings didn’t fit in with the democratically-elected theories.
So, lets say 5,000 experiments say X, and 1 experiment says not X. Then the experiment that says not X gets major press. What is a responsible reaction from the scientific community?
Science:
5000 experiments say X. 1 experiment says Y. If Y is right, then all 5000 X results are invalid. If Y is invalid, the case for X will stand on its own. Whenever you hear the word ‘consensus,’ it is no longer scientific. Whenever the word ‘skeptic’ acquires a negative connotation, it ceases to be scientific. (Thomas Kuhn had a lot to say about this.)
Non-science:
5000 experiments say X. 1 experiment says Y. All the X’s band together and vote that Y is wrong. That is what occurred, and occurs every day in the climate science community, except that the premise is a little different: the ratio is probably a lot lower than 5000:1. What is clear is that the X’s have used every political means possible to make it known that you are ‘good’ if you believe in X, and ‘bad’ if you believe in Y.
Also meant to mention: the premise you’ve suggested is also inaccurate in that we are in no way talking about experiments.