Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University | Watts Up With That?

Twitter / Revkin: But only 40% of Chinese aw

But only 40% of Chinese aware of climate change & 7% of those think it's very serious: http://www.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgi … @andrea_doane @climateprogress

Australian Warming, Hockey Sticks and Open Review - NYTimes.com

Indeed, this is an increasingly normal part of science these days. While the blogosphere comes with lots of noise, it also is providing a second level of review — after the initial round of closed peer review during the publication process — that in the end is making tough, emerging fields of science better than they would otherwise be.

The paper’s changed status was noted today by Ivan Oransky, one of the two science writers behind the invaluable Retraction Watch blog. I asked him by e-mail to characterize the value of this relatively new process of public review. He wrote:

I see this as a good example of how post-publication peer review can work. In general, blogs and other web critiques are already adding a great deal to the scientific process. Some researchers and journals welcome that, as seems to be true in this case. Others stubbornly refuse to engage with criticism from anywhere other than “official channels.” That’s very short-sighted, and it suggests that transparency and self-correction aren’t actually as high-priority as many scientists would like us to believe.