Talk:Junk science/Archives/2019

Early Junk Science ... TASSC

A good friend of mine compiled this information before it went missing from the internet several years ago. It discusses the early members of TASSC when Milloy was acting more as a press agent. I also wanted to add that the silicone and cell phone industry have also antied into the "junk science" public relations funding pool long ago. [http://www.HumanticsFoundation.com/tassc.htm JUNK SCIENCE and TASSC]. I was sorry to see the Stauber and Rampton's references removed and feel they are very appropriate here. Junk, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Shalom. Ilena 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the link and the entire website for references to junk science. The article there seems to be extracting from other sources not cited. Unfortunately, this material is not citable and is a repeat of other more primary sources already in the junk science article. As to the Stauber and Rampton references, I only removed references that appeared to be mere website promotion and that did not address junk science in particular.Stonecarver 17:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[1] is an excellent link. Can you please tell us why you removed this? Thank you. Ilena 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The link you cite above is to a press release from an activist group. Traditionally, we can use sources like that only to verify that the group holds the views which are asserted there. We wouldn't be allowed by WP:RS to rely on the press release for the factual truth of any of the statements it contains. In any case, the press release doesn't mention 'junk science'. EdJohnston 16:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, however, I read it differently. It very clearly demonstrates the politics and financing the public relations which were led to the media attacks on Kyoto. These were championed by Milloy and his junkscience.com. Much of the funding to that campaign is clearly delineated in this article. Did you read that Al Gore is now a Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his global warming work? [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/01/D8N0SUK80.html Al Gore Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize]Check Milloy's junkscience mug ... he claimed he "debunked" global warming. Did you read about scientists being paid to muff up the results? Scientists offered cash to dispute climate studyThese are all part of the junk science campaign and I truly believe are highly relevant to this article. Junk ... like beauty ... is in the eyes of the beholder. Ilena 18:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that information from the Guardian is to be taken seriously. Note that much of this story has just now been added at American Enterprise Institute#Global_warming. The new paragraph that's been added there today seems appropriately balanced and well-sourced.

When you say that 'You read it differently' I'm not sure that you are responding to the WP policy point. A given piece of information offered on an activist website is not citable by us, but a reliable source is citable. Are you disagreeing with WP policies? EdJohnston 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

I see that this article seems to be about the expression, but still wonder if a merge into pseudoscience would be a good idea (I'm not starting an official merge discussion now though, it's just an inquiry). —PaleoNeonate – 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)