There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith, especially those employed by think tanks and other PR organisations. As the questions are political, you need rhetoric. As…
> And indeed, the "climate-change denial" campaign is basically a clone of that. It is interesting to note that not only is the campaign a clone, but it is in part headed by the same people [1] who were involved in the…
I imagine the blog post already assumes some familiarity with the people concerned, as this particular circus with arguing about global warming has been going on for a long time by now.
Most likely it is meant to imply that scientists have retreated from saying "global warming" exists. This is of course false, and that's why it's a dogwhistle and not said directly.
I've given up checking the manuscript proofs, it's a waste of time. The real paper as it was intended is available on arXiv.
Universities and foundations, etc. https://arxiv.org/help/support/faq#2B https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/arxivpub/arXiv+Budget...
That does not speak well of the publisher. Of course with Elsevier, just add it to the pile...
Sure, authors can suggest reviewers, but the editor cannot always assume the list is reasonable. This is one of the things where a good editor with understanding of the field can in principle "add some value".
A role not mentioned above is the editor. By this I don't mean a copy editor, but the person who decides who to send the manuscript for review, and makes the decisions on whether the manuscript is rejected, accepted, or…
That is a very field-dependent experience, and probably unusual even in your field. In many STEM fields, there is essentially zero chance of obtaining a TT position directly after PhD.
There's little reason to believe many high-profile climate deniers are acting in good faith, especially those employed by think tanks and other PR organisations. As the questions are political, you need rhetoric. As…
> And indeed, the "climate-change denial" campaign is basically a clone of that. It is interesting to note that not only is the campaign a clone, but it is in part headed by the same people [1] who were involved in the…
I imagine the blog post already assumes some familiarity with the people concerned, as this particular circus with arguing about global warming has been going on for a long time by now.
Most likely it is meant to imply that scientists have retreated from saying "global warming" exists. This is of course false, and that's why it's a dogwhistle and not said directly.
I've given up checking the manuscript proofs, it's a waste of time. The real paper as it was intended is available on arXiv.
Universities and foundations, etc. https://arxiv.org/help/support/faq#2B https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/arxivpub/arXiv+Budget...
That does not speak well of the publisher. Of course with Elsevier, just add it to the pile...
Sure, authors can suggest reviewers, but the editor cannot always assume the list is reasonable. This is one of the things where a good editor with understanding of the field can in principle "add some value".
A role not mentioned above is the editor. By this I don't mean a copy editor, but the person who decides who to send the manuscript for review, and makes the decisions on whether the manuscript is rejected, accepted, or…
That is a very field-dependent experience, and probably unusual even in your field. In many STEM fields, there is essentially zero chance of obtaining a TT position directly after PhD.