The Reference Frame: Proliferation of wrong papers at 95% confidence level

Regardless of the character and interpretation of the hypotheses and theories, it's clear that a working scientific discipline requires at least the 5-sigma standards if its insights are going to be quasi-reliably reused in realistic, slightly longer chains of reasoning that can be as long as 6 steps or more.

People defending a 2-sigma science are loons, pseudointellectual weeds that are trying to infect not only their contaminated sub-world but all of science and all of modern civilization with a diarrhoea of bullsh*t.

EU Referendum: It's the energy stoopid!

As importantly, emerging economies such as China (and, to an extent India) are winning the race to secure supplies of cheap energy – thus underpinning their future prosperity and stability. By contrast, Western economies – and especially the UK together with other European nations – are saddling themselves with high-cost, unreliable cul-de-sac technologies such as wind power, creating a huge drag on their productive economies.

A Physics Maven’s Take on Skeptical Science - Dot Earth Blog - Alarmist Revkin - NYTimes.com

[Alarmist John Cook, who's not even a climatologist!]  The other motivation for me is I have a 10-year-old daughter and the latest science tells me she’ll see one to two meters’ sea level rise in her lifetime. This isn’t the rabid predictions of alarmist environmentalists – these are the results from multiple peer-reviewed studies using independent techniques that all arrive at the same answer. With such solid evidence being laid before us, I want to be able to look my daughter (and hopefully grandchildren) in the eye when I’m an old man and although my generation dithered on acting on climate change, at least I tried to change things to the best of my abilities.

Why doesn't Revkin write an approving piece on JoNova of Skeptics Handbook fame?