We begin with this thread:
My embolded bit is the first bit. The problem here is another creationist canard. Sternberg did not get fired, he was working his notice at a small journal that normally published systematics papers (ie classification of organisms). It is probable that Sternberg did not send the disputed paper out for review and did the process by himself. He had a conflict of interests beforehand and the paper, by Stephen Meyer, is not one that normal scientific review processes would have permitted. Sternberg's two PhDs (one in moleculr evolution that was slightly relevant, one in systems science that would have been less so) should have flagged the paper up as, at best, controversial. Interestingly, again we are down with creationist/intelligent design tropes.
This is too easy and I am hardly down the list at all.
But Sternberg has associated himself with the biological ID proponents the Discovery Institute and has lectured on such matters. He can believe what he wants but when he is being a scientist he needs to act like a scientist and not be clouded by his religious views.
Oh, the irony. The description, of course, is applicable to the Heartland Institute but that is untuchable at WUWT, even though it took money from tobacco companies for years.
And now from Smokey:
A QUANGO is not an NGO. A QUANGO is paid mostly or in whole by the government, like the Health Protection Agency. An NGO would be clearly independent. Not difficult, Smokey, now is it?
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, was a physicist by training. The point here is, so what. The lack of any scientific training is the worrying point and I can't find evidence that Anthony Watts or Lord Monckton or Willis Eschenbach has (sorry, psychology degrees won't count on this one).
Well, that was easy. I know I've taken the non-climate change comments and shown them to be rubbish (most of the comments in this thread were ad hominem attacks on a person who pointed out that which shall not be mentioned - that Watts and company are wrong (punishment, exile). For a site that likes to call itself scientific and open, it sure is unscientific and closed to criticism.
updateThe first comment in the thread quoted John Mellencamp's song "Crumblin' Down". I wondered what his views are on climate change. Well, these appear to be the views of Farm Aid, the charity that Mellencamp is very closely associated with: http://www.farmaid.org/site/c.qlI5IhNVJsE/b.2739785/apps/s/content.asp?ct=11746719
If we can read anything into it, I guess we can say that John Mellencamp isn't the likeliest supporter of Watts' antiscience site.