I’m going to move towards greater emphasis on ecology discussions, where some thoughtful people have some very interesting and well considered things to say online, in rather stark contrast to the acrimony, bias and flat-out confusion that dominates much of the online climate/paleoclimate “discussions”. Here are a few for starters.
Steve Walker notes in his real nice piece on what science is that he’s actually just trying to figure things out instead of win any arguments. Radical. He links to a piece that argues that an underlying sense of honesty is what really matters (and not just in science), rather than purely technical criteria like Popper’s “falsification” ideas.
Brian McGill talks about different types of Bayesianism and isn’t overly impressed by those who self-identify as practicing Bayesians as if that alone means something important.
Jeremy Fox asks if we should try to reproduce others’ findings. I say yes, for sure. Those who’ve followed the online dendroclimatology “discussions” know all about this one.
Lastly, here’s a practical method for navigating academic politics that you can give a try. Wear a helmet just in case.