Hottest Year Ever????

[palerider]

Yes, for me it would be a cinch, but I'm more mature than that.

Clearly you aren't.....did your 5th grade daughter teach you that one?

Now, let's see... it's back to falsified data not just by some individuals, but by climate science as a whole. And the purpose of falsifying data would be what again?

You don't seem to grasp the fact that science...all science is individuals...even science at universities is done by individuals who get funding for projects. Hell even scientists at NOAA, NASA, GISS, etc apply for funding for their projects. You don't seem to even understand how science is done. What? Do you think there is some big building called climate science where all climate science is done and the people who work there are salaried and don't have to worry about where their next mortgage payment is coming from?....maybe you think they all live in a big dormitory and eat all their meals for free at the cafeteria downstairs.

 

[PLC1]

Clearly you aren't.....did your 5th grade daughter teach you that one?



You don't seem to grasp the fact that science...all science is individuals...even science at universities is done by individuals who get funding for projects. Hell even scientists at NOAA, NASA, GISS, etc apply for funding for their projects. You don't seem to even understand how science is done. What? Do you think there is some big building called climate science where all climate science is done and the people who work there are salaried and don't have to worry about where their next mortgage payment is coming from?....maybe you think they all live in a big dormitory and eat all their meals for free at the cafeteria downstairs.

Right, and science is peer reviewed.

Put out a paper on whatever, and your peers will do everything that they can to try to disprove you theory. If they fail, they'll try again. Only when no one has been able to disprove an hypothesis does it become a theory and generally accepted. Even then, new data can still overturn the theory.

That's how science checks itself.

and not by an internet campaign taking a few data here and there and building up a huge house of cards.

 

[palerider]

Right, and science is peer reviewed.

Science is pal reviewed...the second worst problem facing science in all areas today is the failure of the peer review process to catch all of the data being falsified resulting in record numbers of retractions of papers.

Put out a paper on whatever, and your peers will do everything that they can to try to disprove you theory.

Only if your paper goes against the consensus....and this is well documented.

That's how science checks itself.

And it is failing miserably in all branches of science as evidenced by the massive numbers of retracted papers and scientists being caught falsifying, and fabricating data. It would seen that even you would be able to make that leap.

 

[PLC1]

Science is pal reviewed...the second worst problem facing science in all areas today is the failure of the peer review process to catch all of the data being falsified resulting in record numbers of retractions of papers.



Only if your paper goes against the consensus....and this is well documented.



And it is failing miserably in all branches of science as evidenced by the massive numbers of retracted papers and scientists being caught falsifying, and fabricating data. It would seen that even you would be able to make that leap.

How frequent is falsification of data?

To measure the frequency of misconduct, different approaches have been employed, and they have produced a corresponding variety of estimates. Based on the number of government confirmed cases in the US, fraud is documented in about 1 every 100.000 scientists [11], or 1 every 10.000 according to a different counting [3]. Paper retractions from the PubMed library due to misconduct, on the other hand, have a frequency of 0.02%, which led to speculation that between 0.02 and 0.2% of papers in the literature are fraudulent [17]. Eight out of 800 papers submitted to The Journal of Cell Biology had digital images that had been improperly manipulated, suggesting a 1% frequency [11]. Finally, routine data audits conducted by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1977 and 1990 found deficiencies and flaws in 10–20% of studies, and led to 2% of clinical investigators being judged guilty of serious scientific misconduct [18].

 

[palerider]

How frequent is falsification of data?

You clearly can't read....or read with the intention of willfully remaining ignorant. From your own paper:

A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.

However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.

Read for comprehension...your own source states quite clearly that bad science is rampant and climate science certainly isn't immune....judging from the startling numbers of charts and graphs and data sets that have undergone wholesale changes over time with no actual explanation as to why, or revelation of the methodology by which the changes were made to allow replication by other scientists it would seem that climate science is genuinely a bad actor and guilty of bad science on a whole new level.

Cherry picking is certainly a questionable practice and you will be hard pressed to find any paper supporting the AGW hypothesis that is not guilty of cherrypicking...That would mean that just about 100% of published papers in support of the AGW hypothesis questionable.

 

[PLC1]

You clearly can't read....or read with the intention of willfully remaining ignorant. From your own paper:





Read for comprehension...your own source states quite clearly that bad science is rampant and climate science certainly isn't immune....judging from the startling numbers of charts and graphs and data sets that have undergone wholesale changes over time with no actual explanation as to why, or revelation of the methodology by which the changes were made to allow replication by other scientists it would seem that climate science is genuinely a bad actor and guilty of bad science on a whole new level.

Cherry picking is certainly a questionable practice and you will be hard pressed to find any paper supporting the AGW hypothesis that is not guilty of cherrypicking...That would mean that just about 100% of published papers in support of the AGW hypothesis questionable.

and yet, your post is a prime example of cherry picking.

 

[palerider]

and yet, your post is a prime example of cherry picking.

The main point of your paper was that fudging to get published is rampant.

 

[PLC1]

The main point of your paper was that fudging to get published is rampant.

If they weren't such cheaters, they might actually have been able to land men on the moon and robotic machines on Mars.

 

[palerider]

If they weren't such cheaters, they might actually have been able to land men on the moon and robotic machines on Mars.

So so shallow...unable to differentiate between scientific research and feats of engineering.

 

[PLC1]

So so shallow...unable to differentiate between scientific research and feats of engineering.

because no research was necessary for space exploration?

 

[palerider]

because no research was necessary for space exploration?

The research done to get into space was done long ago....long before the current misconduct crisis in science. Today, going into space and going anywhere in space is a matter of engineering...one of the few sciences left that actually puts its theories to the physical test.

I can't tell you how entertaining it is to watch you attempt to defend the indefensible. A crisis exists in science....bad data, and bad practices everywhere you turn and you are tying to defend it; saying nothing to see here rather than acknowledge that something may be seriously wrong with climate science...a very poorly regulated soft science.

Your own paper was a damning testimony for the failure of the pal review system...so few papers caught in the pal review system...so many scientists privately admitting to cheating to get published...and you are trying your best to defend it. Faith can be a real destroyer sometimes....

 

[fedor50]

The research done to get into space was done long ago....long before the current misconduct crisis in science. Today, going into space and going anywhere in space is a matter of engineering...one of the few sciences left that actually puts its theories to the physical test.

I can't tell you how entertaining it is to watch you attempt to defend the indefensible. A crisis exists in science....bad data, and bad practices everywhere you turn and you are tying to defend it; saying nothing to see here rather than acknowledge that something may be seriously wrong with climate science...a very poorly regulated soft science.

Your own paper was a damning testimony for the failure of the pal review system...so few papers caught in the pal review system...so many scientists privately admitting to cheating to get published...and you are trying your best to defend it. Faith can be a real destroyer sometimes....

Hey Pale Rider, what is your opinion on the recent supreme court gay marriage ruling?

Also, did you catch any fish when you went fishing this weekend?

 

[PLC1]

The research done to get into space was done long ago....long before the current misconduct crisis in science. Today, going into space and going anywhere in space is a matter of engineering...one of the few sciences left that actually puts its theories to the physical test.

I can't tell you how entertaining it is to watch you attempt to defend the indefensible. A crisis exists in science....bad data, and bad practices everywhere you turn and you are tying to defend it; saying nothing to see here rather than acknowledge that something may be seriously wrong with climate science...a very poorly regulated soft science.

Your own paper was a damning testimony for the failure of the pal review system...so few papers caught in the pal review system...so many scientists privately admitting to cheating to get published...and you are trying your best to defend it. Faith can be a real destroyer sometimes....

So, when do you think the "current misconduct crisis in science" began? How far back do we have to go before we can trust scientific research?

Must be before the Wright Brothers if the principles of flight are about to be proven wrong.

 

[palerider]

So, when do you think the "current misconduct crisis in science" began? How far back do we have to go before we can trust scientific research?

Must be before the Wright Brothers if the principles of flight are about to be proven wrong.

You only need look back at the number of papers that were retracted for errors....and the numbers of scientists accused of misconduct....clearly the peer review system started going downhill fast in the 90's.

 

[palerider]

Hey Pale Rider, what is your opinion on the recent supreme court gay marriage ruling?

I think it is a bad idea for a court to grant special rights based on sexual preference.

Also, did you catch any fish when you went fishing this weekend?

Didn't even wet a line....to windy to fish....swam a bit but currents were running hard so mostly just hung out.