Welcome to the new JunkScience.com!

Now entering its 16th year, JunkScience.com is both moving forward and returning to its roots.

On the one hand we are moving to a more frequent posting regime, becoming more reference/researcher friendly and enabling comment and discussion. More on that latter point in a moment.

On the other hand JunkScience.com is returning to its roots, taking on “all the junk that’s fit to debunk.” For far too long, we  — and most everyone else  — have been consumed by the mother of  junk science battles, the enhanced greenhouse or “catastrophic manmade global warming” scam. While climate alarmism is rightly dying, it is not dead yet — and so we will continue to point out the junk en passant. Gradually coming online, too, is our ultimate debunking resource, Debunkosaurus.com.

For those who rely on or are simply interested in JunkScience.com‘s monthly updated plots of the major global temperature times series, these will still be maintained, although you will need to update your bookmarks to reflect a change in domain from JunkScience to JunkScienceArchive.com/… The entire static site will remain available under the archive domain name, doubtless there will be some inconvenience as search engines take time to reflect that change.

About our comment and discussion feature, some people want a say, some don’t and unfortunately some others — out of sheer malice, dementia or pecuniary/political interests — seek to interrupt or subvert said discussions. Ideally all discussion should be completely free and unfettered, but Internet trolls and paid agents of scammers and promoters of junk science are a fact of life. Consequently we have decided to try simply requiring a name and valid email address (which will not be revealed or distributed) and first post moderation.

Once you have had a post cleared through moderation you should be good to go without further ado. Of course, this opens the field to trolls and harassers of all description so moderators will apply an immediate, arbitrary and permanent block on posting by that identity. By this means, we hope to have open discussion and reasoned debate. From time to time we will even post an open thread for reader initiated discussions. Your argument can be passionate as long as it is also reasoned and fact-based. We will keep the comment facility open as long as users play nice.

30 thoughts on “Welcome to the new JunkScience.com!”

  1. I also do not care for the new site, even over at junksidebar there are only a few articles every day.

  2. I am not a fan of the new format. There have been no updates today at all, and instead of having 30-40 articles to look through, you have only posted 2 or 3 pr day. Secondly, the links aren’t working to take me to the news stories, specifically the EPA story.
    I hope you work out the kinks soon, or I might be a less and less frequent visitor.

  3. I’ve been a regular on JunkScience.com for years — thank you for all the great work you’ve done. Oh, I do like the new format.

  4. Thanks, hazards of auto link embedding in the edit box – it is trying to take you to a file named “…” at JunkScienceArchive.com, which of course does not exist.

    Parenthetically, there is no “s” on JunkScienceArchive.

  5. Just wanted to let you know that the link JunkScienceArchives.com comes up with a 404 at this end. Thanks.

  6. A suggestion. It might be helpful to you to provide a way for your readers to notify you of junk science studies that they become aware of. I can think of a couple of recent health-related coal studies that are in serious need of debunking. For example, EHP’s new “Estimating the Global Public Health Implications of Electricity and Coal Consumption.”

  7. True enough but you really should contact WebSense and get this fixed. It is a leading browser filter and I’m stuck with its edicts.

  8. The redesign is really, really terrible. I come to read the articles/blog entries, not one two sentences, followed by a left click that takes me away from the main page, or a laborious right click/open in new tab,/click on new tab/read it/close the tab/click back on the main page/repeat ad nauseam. I love this site, been coming here for a decade, but if this isn’t fixed, I’ll probably cut back to once a week, maybe drop it completely. It’s just not worth the distracting hassle to read anything.

  9. Thanks for doing this. For the first time in years, your site is showing up in my feed reader.

    I would like to request that you keep a list of your affiliated sites like Debunkosaurus and the Junkscience Archive on your blog roll.

  10. There seems to be a problem with the site. Every time I try to sign in for notifications I get directed to some Wiki page.

    Consider me signed up

  11. Looking forward to seeing all of the new site up and running. Keep up the great work against the greenie weenies.

  12. I am a regular reader of junkscience and have always found the site interesting. I am very pleased that you have decided to allow comments and look forward to the discussions to come. Steven’s comment underlines why sites like yours are important, “Public Health (note the capital letters, it is how they think of themselves) Don’t like it”, good, best recommendation the site could possibly have.

  13. I’ve been a fan of junkscience for years- I have really enjoyed defending this site in several of my Public Health classes- They really don’t like Steven Milloy

  14. Agreed, Sandy’s guest contributions are sadly missed but she is a free agent with a life to lead and living to earn. I’ll drop her a line and see if she’s got time to return to the keyboard even if on an ad hoc basis.

  15. No doubt many promoters of junk science consider our material to be “potentially damaging” – just ask Al Gore.

  16. I miss the postings by Sandi on medical issues. She explained a lot about medical studies and how size and length of the study mattered and how factors were overlooked. She had a lot else to say about medical. Bring here back.


  17. JunkScienceArchives.com is currently blocked by WebSense as potentially damaging content. I wish I could tell you who to contact to get this fixed. WebSense does get these things wrong from time to time.

  18. I think you are making the right move. The AGW controversy is basically in its death throes. I find much less is being seriously written about it.

    Thanks for your work in this area and I look forward to checking you out in the future.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.