In, say, football, you can measure the 'leading team' either by a score if we're talking about the game, or if the season, by their record. By what measure are any of the media's "leading scientists" leading scientists?
I LOVE LOVE LOVE all this talk about 'One of America's leading scientists' or 'Most of the worlds scientists agree.'
By what standard of measure are they leading? And whom exactly is it that they are 'ahead of'? 'Ahead of' by what measure? That more 'leading scientists' agree with them than the scientists with whom they disagree? (I guess those would be the 'trailing scientists.') That's begging the question - proving the theory using the fact of the theory as evidence.
It's totally arbitrary, propaganda. How do I prove that it's totally arbitrary and propaganda?
Because America's leading political mind has just written that it is.
“By what measure are any of the media’s “leading scientists” leading scientists?”
Excellent, and extremely valid point. At a time when less than 50% of research publications are ever cited - even once, and when ~89%% of papers on cancer research from the top journals can’t be replicated (Nature 483, 531–533; 29 March 2012), what exactly is ‘good’ science, and who exactly is a ‘top’ scientist? The matter of who is a top scientist is not decided by whether or not their results hold up, or if they find something that actually makes a difference. It’s decided by how much funding they have, and whether or not they get published in very visible journals (often a function of who much they sensationalize their findings, and who many people they know who might be reviewers). The real criteria should be based on whether or not they are correct in their findings and judgment - and whether or not their findings actually have a chance of making a difference.