Scientific Research Is Unreliable, Unreliable Scientists Report

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

...You may see it as proof positive that only 1 out of 9136 authors rejected man made global warming, but I see it as a big red flag. Be careful not to become the kind of zealot you mock.

---

You are free to go through the list to spot all their errors. I will simply assume you don't have the qualifications to do it. Easier to just dismiss them all, I guess.

Maybe there are so few who reject it because the reality is the way it is. But it is of course easier to claim it is based on shady stuff, but how do you know that?

If I'm a zealot, then it would be for the scientific method. I'll drink to science and you can drink to...whatever you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research

---

:laugh4:

You are aware that medical research is one of the best examples of evidence suppression and distortion?

I'm sure that everyone understands the concept of trial against placebo. Yet in the pharmaceutical industry trial against placebo is often almost worthless. Because in most instances we already possess some treatment that is in some measure effective. So what a doctor, and by proxy society, really wants and needs to know is not, is this drug better than nothing but rather is this drug better than our current best treatment.

There is also the practice of rigging data, either by dosing the competing drug in either too high or low a dose during the trial. Too high and you've created the illusion of the side-effects of the current treatment being worse than they are. Too low and you've understated the value of the current or competing treatment. One of the best examples of this are the antipsychotic drugs Thioridazine vs. Haloperidol. In the trial process they dosed Haloperidol at 20mg, a drug which is prescribed and effective in the range of 0.5mg to 5mg. It's entirely predictable that if you dose a drug at 400% its recommended level that you'll observe more side-effects and the normally dosed Thioridazine will look better by comparison.

Medical research is also the poster child for publication bias, in this case where negative data is withheld resulting in misleadingly positive or significant findings. US law requires all FDA approved research be published and submitted to its ClinicalTrials.gov database. This is only the case 50% of the time, half either go unpublished or are delayed in publishing (by which time a drug may already be on the market).^t How can a doctor make an educated decision on the true efficacy of a drug if half of the trials are unavailable?

t Riveros, C. et al. PLoS Med. 10, e1001566 (2013).

I have taken part in the peer review process on both sides of the issue.

It is not perfect and depending on the field, it can be more political than scientific.

There is little to no incentive to replicate the work. Most reviewers are under time pressure and are working on their own projects. Even if you disagree with the findings you had also best be better politically connected than those you give a negative review.

It does not mean that peer review is worthless. It just means that it can be just as littered with pitfalls as any other human endeavor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

You are free to go through the list to spot all their errors. I will simply assume you don't have the qualifications to do it. Easier to just dismiss them all, I guess.

Maybe there are so few who reject it because the reality is the way it is. But it is of course easier to claim it is based on shady stuff, but how do you know that?

If I'm a zealot, then it would be for the scientific method. I'll drink to science and you can drink to...whatever you like.

---

Wasn't there a big climate change skeptic a couple of years back who decided to do a meta-analysis on the data then admitted to pretty much eating his own words by suggesting there may be grounds for man-made climate change, even if it isn't as significant as some papers predict ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

Wasn't there a big climate change sceptic a couple of years back who decided to do a meta-analysis on the data then admitted to pretty much eating his own words by suggesting there may be grounds for man-made climate change, even if it isn't as significant as some papers predict ?

---

That would be Richard A. Muller. "Skeptics" adored the guy and some even said they would accept the result of his study, no matter the conclusion. When he concluded that global warming was real and humans were the primary cause of it*...well let's just they didn't like it, heh.

*and that earlier scientific studies (incl. the much hated Hockey Stick graph) had not been biased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fisherking

I have taken part in the peer review process on both sides of the issue.

It is not perfect and depending on the field, it can be more political than scientific.

There is little to no incentive to replicate the work. Most reviewers are under time pressure and are working on their own projects. Even if you disagree with the findings you had also best be better politically connected than those you give a negative review.

It does not mean that peer review is worthless. It just means that it can be just as littered with pitfalls as any other human endeavor.

---

So basically, it's a rubber stamp if the author is well-connected?

I think that was one of the suggestions of the second article I linked in the OP. It took a guy who wasn't worried about ruining his career to challenge the "settled science". :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Really?

---

I had a closer look at the site you provided Xiahou. This report was interesting. I'll just quote a single sentence to ram my point in this thread home:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by article, p.3

The climate and vegetation in Greenland during Norse times were much the same as today

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I had a closer look at the site you provided Xiahou. This report was interesting. I'll just quote a single sentence to ram my point in this thread home:

---

I have been thinking about the barley ears they found on Greenland. It is well known that you can't grow grains on Greenland, they won't produce mature grains.
So they found a few burnt ears at the bottom of a dung heap. Conclusion was that it had to be the remains of something growing there as nobody would export full ears.
Haven't seen in any report a judgement of the maturity of these barley ears. where they harvested as full barley or merely failed crops?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Haven't seen in any report a judgement of the maturity of these barley ears. where they harvested as full barley or merely failed crops?

---

The kernels were charred and about 2 mm wide or so. An Icelandic dung had similar sized kernels and it looks like that is good enough for their conclusion of a "complete Scandinavian agro-pastoral package"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by naut

:laugh4:

You are aware that medical research is one of the best examples of evidence suppression and distortion?

I'm sure that everyone understands the concept of trial against placebo. Yet in the pharmaceutical industry trial against placebo is often almost worthless. Because in most instances we already possess some treatment that is in some measure effective. So what a doctor, and by proxy society, really wants and needs to know is not, is this drug better than nothing but rather is this drug better than our current best treatment.

There is also the practice of rigging data, either by dosing the competing drug in either too high or low a dose during the trial. Too high and you've created the illusion of the side-effects of the current treatment being worse than they are. Too low and you've understated the value of the current or competing treatment. One of the best examples of this are the antipsychotic drugs Thioridazine vs. Haloperidol. In the trial process they dosed Haloperidol at 20mg, a drug which is prescribed and effective in the range of 0.5mg to 5mg. It's entirely predictable that if you dose a drug at 400% its recommended level that you'll observe more side-effects and the normally dosed Thioridazine will look better by comparison.

Medical research is also the poster child for publication bias, in this case where negative data is withheld resulting in misleadingly positive or significant findings. US law requires all FDA approved research be published and submitted to its ClinicalTrials.gov database. This is only the case 50% of the time, half either go unpublished or are delayed in publishing (by which time a drug may already be on the market).^t How can a doctor make an educated decision on the true efficacy of a drug if half of the trials are unavailable?

t Riveros, C. et al. PLoS Med. 10, e1001566 (2013).

---

I could not agree more. Indeed, please do not interpret my comparison as a ringing endorsement of medical research, quite the contrary. As objectively flawed as the medical sciences are, however, the academic standards and qualifications, peer review process, and quality control are even less rigorous in climate research. Needless to say, the climate sciences do not draw the world's best and brightest.

Quote:

---

You are free to go through the list to spot all their errors. I will simply assume you don't have the qualifications to do it. Easier to just dismiss them all, I guess.

Maybe there are so few who reject it because the reality is the way it is. But it is of course easier to claim it is based on shady stuff, but how do you know that?

If I'm a zealot, then it would be for the scientific method. I'll drink to science and you can drink to...whatever you like.

---

That's all well and good, but you must understand that the scientific method of actually verifying new science and separating objective facts from narrative conforming results is fundamentally flawed. The points highlighted in the OP are hardly new; each year brings new articles that paint a picture of a scientific community less able to regulate itself than Wall Street, and filled with the same career driven ambition and the shortcuts that are associated with it.

You are correct. I am not qualified to interpret the data, although I have no doubt that getting qualified would have been far easier that what I did study in university. I believe the earth is warming and that humans are causing it because I have no choice. I have to trust this group of career driven, unregulated, and highly susceptible to peer pressure scientists in the same way I have to trust my financial adviser. But I am under no delusions as to the moral and/or intellectual integrity of the scientific community, and I certainly am not confident enough in it to muster the ugly mixture of hubris and derision so typically displayed against those who choose not to trust this very flawed institution.

My point very bluntly is that responding to any hint of skepticism by casting aspersions against the skeptics motivations on a religious, political, or conspiratorial level is uncalled for and counterproductive. Countering perceived skepticism with study counts is a lazy appeal to authority and does not really mean anything. Such antagonism creates the kind of self-reinforcing atmosphere which is discussed in the OP in which true skepticism is highly discouraged... the kind of skepticism on which real science depends.

As displayed in this thread, global warming zealots regularly mock the religious. While it is indeed more logical to put one's trust in science over religion, one must be careful not to elevate science and its practitioners to god-like status - attacking anyone who dares question the One True Word. The scientific community, made up of flawed human beings just like any other field, simply doesn't deserve it. You may think you are defending science by discouraging skepticism, but you are actually damaging it in the long run. IMHO, of course. :bow:

...add to that the shrinking of fundage and thus the intense struggle for money...which sadly at times means an alarmist attitude instead of a scientific one...

Quote:

---

although I have no doubt that getting qualified would have been far easier that what I did study in university.

---

I suspect this is a mistake, and anyway belies your calls for rigor and "skepticism".

Skepticism is fine, but throwing out the work of literally tens of thousands of scientists is not skepticism. A skeptic asks questions, but who can possible answer the questions when one does not want to hear from those who study the very same topic the skeptic want answers in.

That climate research is not very rigorous and that it does not draw in the brightest is a big claim and I would simply call it an absurd claim. Global warming is a rather hot topic, pardon the pun, and especially studies on current and future climate is scrutinized from left and right. I know of papers that was withdrawn again because of errors noticed within days of publication. If you ever become a prominent scientist you can then prepare for the harassment like death threats and lawsuits, but that seems to be just part of the package these days.

If you disliked my dismissal of your easy dismissal of the whole science behind it, then so be it. You can start here with a list of answers to skeptical arguments https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php If you don't like them then go back to the original four reasons in my first post ~;)

Quote:

---

You are correct. I am not qualified to interpret the data, although I have no doubt that getting qualified would have been far easier that what I did study in university.

---

Attachment 11953

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dimeola

which sadly at times means an alarmist attitude instead of a scientific one...

---

Don't confuse the scientists with the media.

You only need to read a single paper to see that it's filled to the brim with if's, but's and general uncertainty. It's only when it's translated into media terms that it turns apocalyptic. For one thing, the media almost always reports on the worst of the many predictions made in a paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

The kernels were charred and about 2 mm wide or so. An Icelandic dung had similar sized kernels and it looks like that is good enough for their conclusion of a "complete Scandinavian agro-pastoral package"

---

That paper only refers to use of grain as animal fodder, however.

Forget about your wheat fields Tore, prepare to ingest the godly diet of sheep like the rest of us in the real world. The Chinese are forcing you to become a west lander or at least live under the same weather conditions as us. Cretaceous - here we come. :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

Forget about your wheat fields Tore, prepare to ingest the godly diet of sheep like the rest of us in the real world. The Chinese are forcing you to become a west lander or at least live under the same weather conditions as us. Cretaceous - here we come. :sneaky:

---

What do you call a westerner with a sheep under each arm?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A pimp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That paper only refers to use of grain as animal fodder, however.

---

No, it says maybe and perhaps. In the conclusion they write that most likely the animals had grazed on harvested fields.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

No, it says maybe and perhaps. In the conclusion they write that most likely the animals had grazed on harvested fields.

---

You need to harvest fodder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

You need to harvest fodder.

---

And? What are you arguing about? That the barley was too poor for human consumption? That barley was only used for animals? Not what the paper is saying nor does it fit with what AFAIK Icelanders were using barley for.

The grain size, and the conclusions of the paper, would suggest that the Greenland barley was ripe. And that is what Sigurd was wondering about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

That the barley was too poor for human consumption? That barley was only used for animals?

---

The paper doesn't conclude on either of those, and that* was all I was trying to highlight.

*the uncertainty

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

What do you call a westerner with a sheep under each arm?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A pimp.

---

BAAAAAhd joke. Loved it.

One of those Welsh and New Zealand jokes apply to Norway as well?

New Zealand ranks up there, but the winner is....The Falklands (Las Malvinas) with the highest number of sheep per capita of any bit of land in the world.

I do NOT know if there was a connection between this and the invasion. Far be it from me to comment on Argentines.

Of course, the newest Holy Father is an Argentine....

Hmmm. Is there a conspiracy theory lurking in here somewhere? If so, how can we exploit the gullible and fund the org? As I recall, the Senior Member porn stash was looking a bit....long in the tooth. Might just have been photos of Andres in drag that were misplaced though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

One of those Welsh and New Zealand jokes apply to Norway as well?

---

Sheep-shagging jokes are pretty much universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

Sheep-shagging is pretty much universal among sheep-farmers.

---

Fixed it for ya.

A friend of mine is a bio-chemical researcher and she told me they have to play with the results every time; scrapping the (outcomes of) experiments they do not like, limiting results to the ones that fit,... It's institutionalised really.

I also had a friend (he already held a degree in engineering) who when writing his phd (in psychology) always had to correct his professor's mathematical suggestions, ideas and all. It was clear the man didn't really understand the program he was working with, not the basic principles of the maths involved with that kind of research. He called it embarrassing. When offered a spot to work with research team of the professor afterwards, he obviously politely declined.

Fragony already mentioned the two cases of clear fraud used in Dutch research? Well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture does it? To me it's clear that the sciences who rely to much on statistics, especially as those fields aren't rich in people who are actually strong at maths. That and the mere fact that the first rule of statistics is, correlation doesn't imply causality. When people find a correlation they end up using their creativity to explain it. When people want to explain something they'll find a correlation. And even worse but apparently common practice, people will even manipulate results to achieve correlation or a different form of mathematical backing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiaexz

One of those Welsh and New Zealand jokes apply to Norway as well?

---

As an Aussie-Kiwi with a Welsh mum and Scandinavian surname I've heard a lot of sheep jokes.

What's the top selling KY jelly in NZ?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Mint flavour

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

A friend of mine is a bio-chemical researcher and she told me they have to play with the results every time; scrapping the (outcomes of) experiments they do not like, limiting results to the ones that fit,... It's institutionalised really.

I also had a friend (he already held a degree in engineering) who when writing his phd (in psychology) always had to correct his professor's mathematical suggestions, ideas and all. It was clear the man didn't really understand the program he was working with, not the basic principles of the maths involved with that kind of research. He called it embarrassing. When offered a spot to work with research team of the professor afterwards, he obviously politely declined.

Fragony already mentioned the two cases of clear fraud used in Dutch research? Well, it doesn't paint a pretty picture does it? To me it's clear that the sciences who rely to much on statistics, especially as those fields aren't rich in people who are actually strong at maths. That and the mere fact that the first rule of statistics is, correlation doesn't imply causality. When people find a correlation they end up using their creativity to explain it. When people want to explain something they'll find a correlation. And even worse but apparently common practice, people will even manipulate results to achieve correlation or a different form of mathematical backing.

---

The problem with looking for the right results I believe is less to do with the individuals and more to do with the current institutional practice of rewarding those who try to find new and exciting things rather than those who try to confirm what has already been proposed by other findings or those who simply try to rule out possible ideas through failure.

The issue with the humanities is an error on the part of the universities and on the current cultural stigmas we have attached to various disciplines. The fact is, there is no escaping math, not even in the humanities if you wish to actually get somewhere approaching reality. The day is coming when kids will be expected to know basic calc and statistics if they wish to even get into uni.