This appears to be a re-visiting of the arguments Nurse used to such great effect to humiliate James Delingpole just over a year ago. For example, Delingpole admitted that:
– he believes concern about climate change is being driven by a <em>“political agenda”</em> seeking <em>“control”</em> over people;
– <em>“the peer review process has been perhaps irretrievably corrupted”</em> (presumably he meant ‘discredited’?) by Climategate;
– Science should now be assessed by <em>“peer-to-peer review”</em> over the Internet by thousands and thousands of people including <em>“people like me</em> [i.e. him!] <em>that haven’t got a scientific background”</em>.
When Nurse queried the legitimacy of this [<strong>non</strong>-peer review] process, by asking if he would or could read peer-reviewed scientific literature, Delingpole’s response was <strong>stupendously illogical</strong>: <em>“It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed science papers because… I haven’t got the scientific expertise… I am an interpreter of interpretations…”</em>
This tells you all you need to know about the fallacy of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas" rel="nofollow">the marketplace of ideas</a>
↧