Tuesday, June 24, 2014
The Everybody Gets a Trophy Science Edition
According to scientist (his PhD is in ecology) and researcher, Daniele Fanelli, positive results (i.e., those in which the authors have failed to reject the null hypothesis) in scientific journals have mushroomed from 70% (in 1991) to 90%. He sees this as an alarming trend in that the authors obviously haven't gotten any smarter over the years and that the only logical explanations here are fraud and publication bias (a softer version of fraud).....................................................................................I mean, just look at the mindlessness that is happening in climate science. There is NO WAY IN HELL that that Michael Mann article from 1999 (the one with the damned hockey stick) would have ever gotten past a legitimate peer-review process 25-30 years ago. But now, because of the fact that he and his fellow henchmen currently hold the keys to that kingdom, the sucker did get published....Of course, the fact that our tax dollars are continuing to pay for this mass corruption....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
"Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours" -snip-
"On average, across the surveys, around 2% of scientists admitted they had "fabricated" (made up), "falsified" or "altered" data to "improve the outcome" at least once," -snip-
"In both kinds of surveys, misconduct was reported most frequently by medical and pharmacological researchers. This suggests that either the latter are more open and honest in their answers, or that frauds and bias are more frequent in their fields. The latter interpretation would support growing fears that industrial sponsorship is severely distorting scientific evidence to promote commercial treatments and drugs."
-however, in climate science, there is admittedly $$$ supporting
scientific POV .
Sorry but I'll take the Heartland Institute and their scientists over the political hacks at Salon any day (if in fact they knew anything on the subject they'd have known that humans historically have done much BETTER during times of warming and, so, yes, climate change definitely CAN be beneficial - so, too, increases in CO2, one of the key building blocks of life). And the IPCC is full of crap. They have no logical explanation as to why there has been no atmospheric warming for 17 years (per the satellites and radiosonde balloons), no ocean warming for 11 years (per the ARGO system), no change in global sea ice for 30 years (per the University of Illinois's Arctic Science Research Center), and no increase in droughts, tornadoes, and hurricanes for at least 20 years (per Ryan Maue of Florida State, Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, and the IPCC's own graphs). I mean, I'm almost embarrassed for them at this point.
I'm not familiar with the scientific research and personnel at Heartland. IMO, they are like
creationists-just demonizing science because they disagree with the findings. However, along the lines of science fraud, we note that it can occur, and that the peer review process and
non-replicable lab findings assure those that conduct fake
research get exposed . If 98 percent of
doctors recommended surgery for
a brain tumor, there are those, I suppose that would go with the
2% odds....
The creationists here, BB, are the alarmists who essentially started off with the "right" answer and then tried to ad hoc their way to some sort of validation of it.......And the people who have spoken at the annual Heartland Conferences include Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Bob Carter, Nir Shaviv, Pat Michaels, and Don Easterbrook. Not exactly lightweights. That, and they always invite speakers on the other side of the issue and it isn't their fault if only a handful of these folks have ever taken them up on it.......And I've noticed that you've upped the consensus from 97 to 98%. I cannot wait for 99.9.
BB, please go to Youtube and watch the Intelligence Squared debate between Richard Lindzen and Michael Crichton on the skeptic side and Gavin Schmidt (who actually thinks that above-water volcanic eruptions have caused global warming in the past) and that lady from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the alarmist side. Watch it and then tell me what you think about consensus.
Post a Comment