Because I can be a jerk:
Not long ago, John Whitehead reviewed one of our posts on the topic of junk science and opened a can of mild umbrage at one of the sites we linked to through a much older post as a resource for debunking bad science in the media.
Since that post was so six years ago, we thought it was long past time to update and expand that original list of resources, which we did both in our original post and now here for greater visibility.
- Snopes.com - The Internet's premier reference for urban legends, folklore, myths, rumors and misinformation.
- Quackwatch - If it's medical or health-related and not for real, you'll likely find it here.
- Climate Skeptic - Like Quackwatch, but aimed at the poorly supported aspects of global climate change science.
- JunkScience.com - Steven Milloy's site surveying a number of highly questionable scientific claims made in today's media reporting. Update 19 September 2015: Over time, we find that the site's quality in critiquing a number of science reports is mixed overall, combining a number of valid analyses with others that fall somewhat short. For an example of the latter, see John Whitehead's recent discussion of the site's coverage on the topic of contingent valuation, where negative conclusions about particular studies would appear to have been reached without necessarily being backed by sound evidence, or without consideration that the scientists behind the studies being criticized had addressed their points of criticism.
- Junkfood Science - Sandy Szwarc's blog covering ongoing issues with media reporting of nutrition-based junk science.
- Mythbusters - did you think we'd create a list like this and forget the Mythbusters?
- John Stossel - the media's leading questioner of questionable claims, from consumer issues through politics, who also blogs.
- Biggest Junk Science Stories of 2014 - Added 19 September 2015: Hopefully an annual tradition. RealClearScience offers a summary of the biggest junk science stories of 2014. (Here's 2013's edition.)
- Bad Science - Added 19 September 2015: UK science columnist's Ben Goldacre's site on the topic of science that doesn't measure up.
- Retraction Watch - Added 19 September 2015: An invaluable site that didn't exist when we first began assembling our list of resources. Retraction Watch focuses on the mistakes made by scientists who published erroneous results that subsequently required them to alert their peers and to wit
via politicalcalculations.blogspot.com
Don't miss the 9/19 update. I was writing my CVM dissertation when the Exxon Valdez thing happened and trying to get my paper published during the beginning of round 1 of the CVM debate (here is my presentation on Round 2). The high stakes of the Exxon natural resource damage assessment brought out some odd behavior amongst environmental economists. My papers, along with a number of others, received a lot of unfair criticism (on the other hand, the topic was hot and the pages of JEEM were filled with CVM). One result of that debate still today is that the CVM is either (1) purposefully or (2) naively misunderstood by an increasing number of economists* and others. My feeling was that junkscience.com fell into category (2) as a result of category (1). I appreciate Ironman's edits.
Don't get me wrong, just like the artificial carbon tax vs cap-and-trade debate where economists feel the need to display their intellectual heft by picking sides, the choice experiments (or hedonics, etc) vs contingent valuation debate is also artificial.** There is no need to choose which valuation method is better in toto. Researchers should choose a valuation method (policy lever) because one might be better in different valuation (policy) contexts.
**I resisted the urge to add links to this footnote. It is an old and familiar theme for me and the villains are many. If anyone wants to claim that I'm debating a straw man I'll search the archives and supply the links.
