Favorite Science Links

[Clint Barton]

One of mine is www.junkscience.com

Please provide others at your discretion:D

[Sanagi]

http://www.astronomycast.com/

[DonC]

Well, she IS on the Discovery Channel. (http://www.fhmonline.com/articles-1276.asp?cnl_id=5&stn_id=46&idx_id=1276#) That's science, right?

[Paul McEnery]

One of mine is www.junkscience.com

Please provide others at your discretion:D

Imagine my surprise at finding that this isn't a science site at all, but a bullshit site.

Fortunately, you can subscribe to http://www.newscientist.com/ and read up on why the lying bastard who runs junkscience is wrong wrong wrong.

[Clint Barton]

Thanks. I'm working on something with my kids.

[SOGG]

Imagine my surprise at finding that this isn't a science site at all, but a bullshit site.

Fortunately, you can subscribe to http://www.newscientist.com/ and read up on why the lying bastard who runs junkscience is wrong wrong wrong.

Holy shit. That guy should be like... excommunicated from the science community or something. He's actually repudiating the effects of second hand smoke, advocating the use of DDT AND asbestos?

How did this guy ever graduate from Johns Hopkins?

I mean really, did he think that no one would follow the money and see that his 'non profit organisations' are funded by special interest groups and tobacco companies?

[jessecuster3]

Holy shit. That guy should be like... excommunicated from the science community or something. He's actually repudiating the effects of second hand smoke, advocating the use of DDT AND asbestos?

How did this guy ever graduate from Johns Hopkins?

I mean really, did he think that no one would follow the money and see that his 'non profit organisations' are funded by special interest groups and tobacco companies?

Except there is no definitive proof that secondhand smoke is harmful.
And before you start linking me to the EPA's report, note the decision by Judge Joel Osteen throwing out all of their "science".

[Huh?]

One of mine is www.junkscience.com

Please provide others at your discretion:DDoes it strike you as odd that FOX News appears to be the only entity that is publishing him?

And a more appropriate name for his site would be: JunkWebDesignSkills.com

That site looks like it is from 1997.

[Huh?]

Except there is no definitive proof that secondhand smoke is harmful.
And before you start linking me to the EPA's report, note the decision by Judge Joel Osteen throwing out all of their "science".Second hand smoke is a theory at best at this point, but asbestos being harmful is a fact.

[jessecuster3]

Second hand smoke is a theory at best at this point, but asbestos being harmful is a fact.

When did you see me doubt asbestos?

[SOGG]

Except there is no definitive proof that secondhand smoke is harmful.
And before you start linking me to the EPA's report, note the decision by Judge Joel Osteen throwing out all of their "science".

For second hand smoke, sure maybe. But asbestos and ddt?

When 90% of the stuff he's championing seems idiotic, it's a little easier to dismiss the 10%.

[jessecuster3]

For second hand smoke, sure maybe. But asbestos and ddt?

When 90% of the stuff he's championing seems idiotic, it's a little easier to dismiss the 10%.

You did more than that when you referenced Tobacco lobbyists also.

[Huh?]

When did you see me doubt asbestos?Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you were doubting it. I just wanted to point out that giving this guy kudos for debunking secondhand smoke was not something I was keen to do because so much else on his site is bullshit. And after re-reading your post, it doesn't seem like you were giving him kudos either, so I'm sorry.

[SOGG]

You did more than that when you referenced Tobacco lobbyists also.

Well, like I said, maybe. My mind isn't completely made up about second hand smoke, but when the guy talking is a paid shill for tobacco companies -- well, I'm sure you'll forgive me for doubting that he's completely unbiased.

[jessecuster3]

Well, like I said, maybe. My mind isn't completely made up about second hand smoke, but when the guy talking is a paid shill for tobacco companies -- well, I'm sure you'll forgive me for doubting that he's completely unbiased.

Fair enough, even a blind squirrel, and all.

[SOGG]

Fair enough, even a blind squirrel, and all.

hmm. unfamiliar with the expression.

If you'd indulge me?

[jessecuster3]

hmm. unfamiliar with the expression.

If you'd indulge me?

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

As in, he is wrong about so many things he may have accidentally stumbled on something that is correct.

[SOGG]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

As in, he is wrong about so many things he may have accidentally stumbled on something that is correct.

Got it. Cheers.

And yeah, he could be right. I mean, even Newton had weird ideas about beaver testicles.

[Nick Soapdish]

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.

As in, he is wrong about so many things he may have accidentally stumbled on something that is correct.

That's more of an explanation for why somebody is occasionally correct than an argument that somebody is consistently wrong about stuff is right about one that isn't definitive.

[Paul McEnery]

Got it. Cheers.

And yeah, he could be right. I mean, even Newton had weird ideas about beaver testicles.

I am overwhelmed with possible responses.

[jessecuster3]

That's more of an explanation for why somebody is occasionally correct than an argument that somebody is consistently wrong about stuff is right about one that isn't definitive.

That's what I said, isn't it?

[Mysterious Mox]

The best science website is:
www.pubmed.com

PubMed is an online interface to Medline, the largest database of references and abstracts in the biomedical fields. It provides answers to queries based on keywords or other information about scientific papers in most biomedical journals since 1966...
http://dan.corlan.net/medbibtex.html

[Roquefort Raider]

The best science website is:
www.pubmed.com

Darn right!

And right behind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

[SOGG]

I dunno mates. I really like http://xxx.lanl.gov/

[Wesley Dodds]

Imagine my surprise at finding that this isn't a science site at all, but a bullshit site.

Fortunately, you can subscribe to http://www.newscientist.com/ and read up on why the lying bastard who runs junkscience is wrong wrong wrong.

It's been written up over at skepdic before.

[Roquefort Raider]

Worth a daily visit:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

[Rob Allen]

My favorite: the Society for Science & the Public (http://www.societyforscience.org/index.html) and their weekly magazine, Science News (http://www.sciencenews.org/).

[SOGG]

Worth a daily visit:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

wow. That IS pretty cool.

[Nick Soapdish]

That's what I said, isn't it?

I guess I misinterpreted. It sounded to me more like you were thinking that he was due.

[J. Robb]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/

[Bear]

www.scitoys.com

[Clint Barton]

Worth a daily visit:

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Thanks! I should have been more clear. That helps a bunch!