Scientific Research Is Unreliable, Unreliable Scientists Report

[CBR]

And yet we are supposed to adhere to the constant appeals to authority in regard to global warming... What a mess.

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

[Husar]

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

Obvious example of groupthink.

That was easy.

[Sigurd]

Yeah...
When we can grow wheat on Greenland, we'll be back to normal. Or was that palm trees on Spitsbergen? I am confused.

[HoreTore]

Yeah...
When we can grow wheat on Greenland, we'll be back to normal. Or was that palm trees on Spitsbergen? I am confused.

Svalbard is of course a relocated Atlantis. It didn't sink in the ocean, it merely teleported north.

That makes as much sense as Greenland being green and global warming being a myth.

[CBR]

...That makes as much sense as Greenland being green and global warming being a myth.

Greenland does seem to have been nice for cattle and sheep. Evidence so far has only found barley. How widespread such production was is not clear though, only that it was pretty much gone by mid 13th century and I guess it could have been much earlier if we go by Northern Iceland (gone by early 12th century)

[HoreTore]

Greenland does seem to have been nice for cattle and sheep. Evidence so far has only found barley. How widespread such production was is not clear though, only that it was pretty much gone by mid 13th century and I guess it could have been much earlier if we go by Northern Iceland (gone by early 12th century)

The medieval viking farms of Greenland were conveniently located........at the site of present-day farms on Greenland.

Yeah, that disproved global warming alright.

And we're as confident as we can be on the locations. Greenland is arctic, and things rarely disappear from arctic soil.

[Xiahou]

The medieval viking farms of Greenland were conveniently located........at the site of present-day farms on Greenland.

Yeah, that disproved global warming alright.

And we're as confident as we can be on the locations. Greenland is arctic, and things rarely disappear from arctic soil.

Really?

[CBR]

Yeah, that disproved global warming alright.

Just because Greenland had a bit milder climate back then does obviously not disprove AGW.

[Sigurd]

The medieval viking farms of Greenland were conveniently located........at the site of present-day farms on Greenland.

It is quite a difference between managing grain crops and sheep fodder. I believe Greenland can't sustain any type of grain today as it couldn't after the 1300s. Not using this in any way to disprove global warming. Right should be right.
Greenland's artic summers aren't long enough for grain to mature and be harvested.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Greenland does seem to have been nice for cattle and sheep. Evidence so far has only found barley. How widespread such production was is not clear though, only that it was pretty much gone by mid 13th century and I guess it could have been much earlier if we go by Northern Iceland (gone by early 12th century)

The medieval warming period ended about 1250 CE.

[PanzerJaeger]

http://jamespowell.org/

Of course one can always dismiss science when it goes against one's favorite religion and/or news outlet and/or political ideology or if conspiracies is your thing.

The above examples can be dismissed too because it involved even more scientists, so you can easily forget this post if it ruins your sleep.

This is exactly the kind of derisive appeal to authority to which I was referring. How many of those scientists are utilizing complicated statistical modelling programs that they do not fully understand? How many are building on prior research that has not been fully proved out due to a hesitation to question authority and/or spend precious grant dollars to replicate research for which someone else has already gotten credit? How many do you think consider the likelihood of being published and quoted before selecting study topics and/or endeavoring to prove this stuff out? How many are reluctant to undergo the kind mocking attacks against their intellectual capacity and/or integrity that you just demonstrated? How many are friends, err, colleagues, and attend the same conferences, lectures, and social events; in other words, how many have vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Is anyone even asking these questions?

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research, and if this stuff is going on in the latter, it is most assuredly going on in the former especially considering the already-shaky modelling that is so heavily relied on. By throwing around labels such as 'denialist' and casting aspersions on people's motivations as you demonstrated above, the field has essentially insulated itself from a vigorous application of the scientific method. It has become only acceptable to publish within a certain box. 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.

[Montmorency]

You can't deny pure observation that easily. You wouldn't say that the scientific consensus that humans have two arms and two legs is suspect by virtue of social bias, after all.

That's where the existence of global warming stands right now.

I also notice that you don't seem to provide any conditions under which global warming, or indeed any subject of scientific investigation, could be considered validated in any way.

[Dimeola]

...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...

[Montmorency]

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".

[HoreTore]

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.

[Husar]

This is exactly the kind of derisive appeal to authority to which I was referring. How many of those scientists are utilizing complicated statistical modelling programs that they do not fully understand? How many are building on prior research that has not been fully proved out due to a hesitation to question authority and/or spend precious grant dollars to replicate research for which someone else has already gotten credit? How many do you think consider the likelihood of being published and quoted before selecting study topics and/or endeavoring to prove this stuff out? How many are reluctant to undergo the kind mocking attacks against their intellectual capacity and/or integrity that you just demonstrated? How many are friends, err, colleagues, and attend the same conferences, lectures, and social events; in other words, how many have vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Is anyone even asking these questions?

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research, and if this stuff is going on in the latter, it is most assuredly going on in the former especially considering the already-shaky modelling that is so heavily relied on. By throwing around labels such as 'denialist' and casting aspersions on people's motivations as you demonstrated above, the field has essentially insulated itself from a vigorous application of the scientific method. It has become only acceptable to publish within a certain box. 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.

I've already mentioned groupthink...

But how do you even know all these facts about their social circumstances?
Do you stalk climate scientists or are you just guessing?

[CBR]

...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.

[Beskar]

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 ?

[CBR]

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.

[naut]

Climate science is a joke compared to medical research

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).

[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.

[Xiahou]

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".

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

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.

[CBR]

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

[Strike For The South]

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.