Originally posted by smallblueplanet
View Post
Some links to other sites that are clearly not related to the person writing the article is a start.
Links to papers from organisations that I have heard of would be better.
Links to demonstrably academic institutions (i.e. that I have not heard of, but can determine that they exist and are "respectable") are good.
A peer-reviewed article in a magazine, with citations, where the publication is respectable - such that I can assume that the citations actually exist, rather than having to check them myself - carries weight with me.
(Yeah, the "Himalaya glaciers will be gone in a few months" was incorrectly stated [copied without being properly checked] in just such a peer-reviewed article, but I think that was just sloppy, and it did come to light)
It is trivial, by comparison, to set up a website to have a rant about something, and I expect a good number of people reading it will be taken in because it "looks official".
Comment