USA Today: Could we be wrong about global warming?

[BrianFromWA]

To me, he's saying that he (and the experts he's quoting) are Galileo to Al Gore's Pope.

 

[barfo]

To me, he's saying that he (and the experts he's quoting) are Galileo to Al Gore's Pope.

That doesn't make much sense. Al Gore isn't trying to maintain the traditional order of things. He's trying to change it.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

So, to summarize, scientists are evil because they made the bomb. Therefore they cannot be trusted.
Things politicians do (e.g. Kyoto) show that scientists cannot be trusted. Things Al Gore says show that scientists cannot be trusted.

Your rejection of climate science isn't any different than the Catholic church insisting that the sun revolves around the earth. To hell with science, we are going to believe what we want to believe... Eventually history laughs at those who try this tactic.

barfo

I think you totally missed the point. I was told I believe in some conspiracy theory, but it isn't any sort of conspiracy. It was a gradual evolution.

The scientists have a conscience and a morality they want to enforce. They weren't evil, nor are their intentions. They built the Bomb, and it has terrible consequences for society. Einstein (and his contemporaries) felt an incredible guilt over it. Now they may well have a guilty conscience about more modern things, like using mercury in children's vaccines, or making fossil fuel so efficient.

In the process, they've gone from providing enhanced (fill in the blank, war, living, understanding) to being a substitute for religion. Replace "in the beginning, god made the heaven and the earth" with "in the beginning, there was a big bang." Science gives us flood stories in ancient times. You name it (from the bible) and there's a close (enough) scientific alternative. Al Gore would be your messiah or pope.

I don't see that wrongheaded science is any better than wrongheaded religion. And I concede they're both wrongheaded.

 

[Denny Crane]

That doesn't make much sense. Al Gore isn't trying to maintain the traditional order of things. He's trying to change it.

barfo

Al Gore is trying to maintain the traditional order of things in the same sense that religion does/did. The world isn't (in Reality) the way the Church wants it, and never was. People committed adultery all along, and so forth. What they have in common is the one True way, toe the line or else.

Nobody expects the scientific inquisition.

 

[PapaG]

I think this wikipedia entry is more relevant:


barfo

Wiki links! Google it!

 

[PapaG]

So, to summarize, scientists are evil because they made the bomb. Therefore they cannot be trusted.
Things politicians do (e.g. Kyoto) show that scientists cannot be trusted. Things Al Gore says show that scientists cannot be trusted.

Your rejection of climate science isn't any different than the Catholic church insisting that the sun revolves around the earth. To hell with science, we are going to believe what we want to believe... Eventually history laughs at those who try this tactic.
barfo

There is so much irony in this post if you really read it closely. History is repeating itself, only this time the Catholic church is calling themselves "scientists". Skeptical scietists are shunned, dismissed, smeared, and destroyed.

It really is fascinating.

 

[barfo]

I think you totally missed the point. I was told I believe in some conspiracy theory, but it isn't any sort of conspiracy. It was a gradual evolution.

Still sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. You've said that thousands of scientists are lying. How is that not a conspiracy?

Replace "in the beginning, god made the heaven and the earth" with "in the beginning, there was a big bang." Science gives us flood stories in ancient times. You name it (from the bible) and there's a close (enough) scientific alternative. Al Gore would be your messiah or pope.

That's kind of hilarious. You think rationality and irrationality are the same thing? Really?

I don't see that wrongheaded science is any better than wrongheaded religion. And I concede they're both wrongheaded.

Wrongheaded science eventually gets replaced by better understanding. That's the whole thing about science. If you happen to be right about global warming, eventually science will agree with you. If it was religion it never would.

barfo

 

[barfo]

There is so much irony in this post if you really read it closely. History is repeating itself, only this time the Catholic church is calling themselves "scientists". Skeptical scietists are shunned, dismissed, smeared, and destroyed.

Really? I'd like to hear more about the scientists who have been destroyed. What are their names?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Still sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. You've said that thousands of scientists are lying. How is that not a conspiracy?

People believe they see flying saucers and some even believe they've been abducted. I don't see a conspiracy there, either.

That's kind of hilarious. You think rationality and irrationality are the same thing? Really?

No, I think Science isn't being rational. It's not scientific to take a vote (consensus) on whether some perceived (flying saucers, man made global warming) thing is true. It's not rational to squash credible scientists who dissent from the vote.

Wrongheaded science eventually gets replaced by better understanding. That's the whole thing about science. If you happen to be right about global warming, eventually science will agree with you. If it was religion it never would.

barfo

"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

 

[PapaG]

Really? I'd like to hear more about the scientists who have been destroyed. What are their names?

barfo

I'll halt your usual rebuttal technique by saying that I didn't mean literally destroyed.

 

[barfo]

I'll halt your usual rebuttal technique by saying that I didn't mean literally destroyed.

And what did you mean?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Why all the focus on climate models?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090714124956.htm

Global Warming: Scientists' Best Predictions May Be Wrong

No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. (Credit: Image courtesy of Rice University)

ScienceDaily (July 15, 2009) — No one knows exactly how much Earth's climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect.

The study, which appears in Nature Geoscience, found that climate models explain only about half of the heating that occurred during a well-documented period of rapid global warming in Earth's ancient past. The study, which was published online July 13, contains an analysis of published records from a period of rapid climatic warming about 55 million years ago known as the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum, or PETM.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

During the PETM, for reasons that are still unknown, the amount of carbon in Earth's atmosphere rose rapidly. For this reason, the PETM, which has been identified in hundreds of sediment core samples worldwide, is probably the best ancient climate analogue for present-day Earth.

In addition to rapidly rising levels of atmospheric carbon, global surface temperatures rose dramatically during the PETM. Average temperatures worldwide rose by about 7 degrees Celsius -- about 13 degrees Fahrenheit -- in the relatively short geological span of about 10,000 years.

Many of the findings come from studies of core samples drilled from the deep seafloor over the past two decades. When oceanographers study these samples, they can see changes in the carbon cycle during the PETM.

"You go along a core and everything's the same, the same, the same, and then suddenly you pass this time line and the carbon chemistry is completely different," Dickens said. "This has been documented time and again at sites all over the world."

Based on findings related to oceanic acidity levels during the PETM and on calculations about the cycling of carbon among the oceans, air, plants and soil, Dickens and co-authors Richard Zeebe of the University of Hawaii and James Zachos of the University of California-Santa Cruz determined that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased by about 70 percent during the PETM.

That's significant because it does not represent a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels are believed to have risen by about one-third, largely due to the burning of fossil fuels. If present rates of fossil-fuel consumption continue, the doubling of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels will occur sometime within the next century or two.

Doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide is an oft-talked-about threshold, and today's climate models include accepted values for the climate's sensitivity to doubling. Using these accepted values and the PETM carbon data, the researchers found that the models could only explain about half of the warming that Earth experienced 55 million years ago.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."

Journal reference:

• Zeebe et al. Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming. Nature Geoscience, 2009; DOI: 10.1038/ngeo578

Adapted from materials provided by Rice University.

 

[PapaG]

And what did you mean?

barfo

Nice try.

 

[Denny Crane]

What about these hacks? (BTW< Gore was a C- student and is no expert on anything, really)

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2009/07/global-warming.html

I took my annual trip to the Wisconsin cabin of my in-laws and spent half the time shivering. There has been record low temperatures up there. In fact, according to one weather site, there were 800 record low temperatures set across the US in mid July.

Evidently, this has something to do with something called the Arctic Oscillation.

Meanwhile members of the American Chemical Society are revolting agains the editor of their news letter, Rudy Baum, for saying that the debate over man-made climate change is over and we are to blame. Anyone who disputes that is a denier.

Here are some of the responses (thanks to climatedepot.com). This gets to what I've been writing about. Climate change is an inexact science, and to shut the door on debate runs against the very mission of science. It turns a theory into into a belief system into which all must adhere or be cast out as deniers. I can't think of anything more unscientific, as some of the writers below point out.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

 

[Denny Crane]

Another article from Science Daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203745.htm

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

ScienceDaily (May 29, 2009) — It's a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals. The media and many scientists tend to explain away these cases as pathological deviations of a few "bad apples." Common sense and increasing evidence, however, suggest that these could be just the tip of the iceberg, because fraud and other more subtle forms of misconduct might be relatively frequent. The actual numbers, however, are a matter of great controversy.
Estimates based on indirect data (for example, official retractions of scientific papers or random data audits) have produced largely discrepant results. Therefore, many researchers have asked scientists directly, with surveys conducted in different countries and disciplines. However, they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results also appeared inconclusive.

To make these surveys comparable, the meta-analysis focused on behaviours that actually distort scientific knowledge (excluding data on plagiarism and other kinds of malpractice) and extracted the frequency of scientists who recalled having committed a particular behaviour at least once, or who knew a colleague who did.

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, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

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.

As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.

Journal reference:

• Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4(5): e5738 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

 

[PapaG]

What about these hacks? (BTW< Gore was a C- student and is no expert on anything, really)

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2009/07/global-warming.html

I took my annual trip to the Wisconsin cabin of my in-laws and spent half the time shivering. There has been record low temperatures up there. In fact, according to one weather site, there were 800 record low temperatures set across the US in mid July.

Evidently, this has something to do with something called the Arctic Oscillation.

Meanwhile members of the American Chemical Society are revolting agains the editor of their news letter, Rudy Baum, for saying that the debate over man-made climate change is over and we are to blame. Anyone who disputes that is a denier.

Here are some of the responses (thanks to climatedepot.com). This gets to what I've been writing about. Climate change is an inexact science, and to shut the door on debate runs against the very mission of science. It turns a theory into into a belief system into which all must adhere or be cast out as deniers. I can't think of anything more unscientific, as some of the writers below point out.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

Those guys are all hacks. THERE ARE SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH THEM. See, that makes them hacks.

 

[PapaG]

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

This quote sums up my thoughts. I'm sure Howard Hayden is a hack being paid by Big Oil, though.

 

[Denny Crane]

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

 

[rocketeer]

Wrongheaded science eventually gets replaced by better understanding. That's the whole thing about science. If you happen to be right about global warming, eventually science will agree with you. If it was religion it never would.

barfo

that isn't true. you don't think religion ever changes?

 

[barfo]

Nice try.

I see. Basically, you were posting nonsense.

barfo

 

[barfo]

that isn't true. you don't think religion ever changes?

i probably overstated the case. religion does sometimes change. For example, I think the pope now accepts Gallileo.

barfo

 

[barfo]

People believe they see flying saucers and some even believe they've been abducted. I don't see a conspiracy there, either.

I agree that those are equally silly beliefs as yours, but to believe in flying saucers doesn't require thousands of people to lie. Your belief does.

No, I think Science isn't being rational.

Yes, your conspiracy theory is certainly a lot more rational than scientific research. Mm-hmm.

It's not scientific to take a vote (consensus) on whether some perceived (flying saucers, man made global warming) thing is true.

Nonsense. It's the way science gets done. Do you think everyone has to unanimously agree or something? There's always someone who has a different idea. The ideas that get the most "votes" get used in future research; the ideas that don't get the "votes" get forgotten or ignored, until/unless new evidence brings them back.

It's not rational to squash credible scientists who dissent from the vote.

I don't see any squashing. You've presented quotes from lots of publications by lots of skeptics. How did you get those quotes if the authors have been "squashed" or "destroyed"?

"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

So there is another one. How has he been squashed, exactly?

barfo

 

[maxiep]

I bet this thread goes past 500 posts. Remarkable.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nonsense. It's the way science gets done. Do you think everyone has to unanimously agree or something? There's always someone who has a different idea. The ideas that get the most "votes" get used in future research; the ideas that don't get the "votes" get forgotten or ignored, until/unless new evidence brings them back.

Nonsense. Gravity is 9.8 m/sec/sec here on earth. It's 1/6th that on the moon. They didn't vote on it.

Yes, everyone has to unanimously agree on something this big; a claim the end of the world is coming (hey, apocalypse story from the new religion!) and we must do something about it NOW! At all costs.

I don't see any squashing. You've presented quotes from lots of publications by lots of skeptics. How did you get those quotes if the authors have been "squashed" or "destroyed"?

So there is another one. How has he been squashed, exactly?

barfo

People are politicking for radical change to the world economy, and especially the destruction of the US economy. They're telling the people who speak out against it (and the junk science behind it) to shut up. Because they're not successful in every case doesn't make it ok. There's a lot of scientists who would likewise speak out but don't for fear of losing their grants.

And you have argued for the squashing of the work of a 38 year employee of the EPA. He wasn't told his science was wrong, he was told his report would hurt the agenda.

They're about to Rahm through bad legislation based on bad policy based on bad science. That's not listening to Science, it's listening to some subset of scientists who are literally sycophants.

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

 

[Denny Crane]

I bet this thread goes past 500 posts. Remarkable.

It's the offseason, and we don't have Roy's contract extension to talk about.

 

[barfo]

Nonsense. Gravity is 9.8 m/sec/sec here on earth. It's 1/6th that on the moon. They didn't vote on it.

They don't vote on anything. That's why I put vote in quotes.

Yes, everyone has to unanimously agree on something this big; a claim the end of the world is coming (hey, apocalypse story from the new religion!) and we must do something about it NOW! At all costs.

That isn't realistic. At all. Unanimous consent usually doesn't happen for a century or two. Hell, there are still people who think the earth is flat. Should we have not explored the oceans until everyone agreed that we wouldn't fall off the edge?

People are politicking for radical change to the world economy, and especially the destruction of the US economy. They're telling the people who speak out against it (and the junk science behind it) to shut up. Because they're not successful in every case doesn't make it ok. There's a lot of scientists who would likewise speak out but don't for fear of losing their grants.

Evidence? I'm not sure how you'd know about the "lot of scientists" who don't speak out. Do they call you personally to tell you their views?

And you have argued for the squashing of the work of a 38 year employee of the EPA. He wasn't told his science was wrong, he was told his report would hurt the agenda.

His work is not squashed, it is published on the internets... that's where it should have been published. Not including it in a report that was never intended to include it doesn't seem unreasonable.

They're about to Rahm through bad legislation based on bad policy based on bad science. That's not listening to Science , it's listening to some subset of scientists who are literally sycophants.

Denny, that's politics. If you think they aren't listening to science, then why are the scientists the bad guys here? Why not blame bad policy on those that make bad policy?

barfo

 

[BrianFromWA]

Denny, that's politics. If you think they aren't listening to science, then why are the scientists the bad guys here? Why not blame bad policy on those that make bad policy?

barfo

Of all the things, this is the one I can agree with you on.

I'm not saying that scientists are "bad guys"...I'm saying that some are right, some are wrong; no one knows which is which yet; yet instead of continuing research we're basing policy upon "data" collected from the output of human-created model. I will very much blame policy attempts on those making the (IMO, bad) policy.

And to me, there's no problem with a scientist standing by a model that's potentially erroneous or outdated--on either side. It's when they say things like "the debate is over" or "this is Truth" that I start to wonder. Most of the sciences were built upon

And as far as the "earth is flat" theory--that had been disproven by the Greeks before the time of Alexander the Great and could be easily observed every time there was a lunar eclipse. Clearly observable phenomena were not in accord with the "model" that many had in their minds of the shape of the earth, and due to the lack of education of much of the populace most couldn't grasp these concepts, even if they cared to. You could extrapolate that today into many, many realms--nuclear power, climate change/global warming, economic policy, etc. We're a relatively informed set of relatively intelligent people here, and are going back and forth over the science of these issues. You're telling me that some random group of Americans would have the first clue whether or not policy on any of these issues is based upon problematic research or debunked "science"? No...they trust their representatives to do the right thing. Unfortunately, I don't think many of those people are qualified to make the decisions about science-backed policy, either---but they're trying according to their worldview.

 

[mobes23]

Another article from Science Daily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090528203745.htm

How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research?

ScienceDaily (May 29, 2009) — It's a long-standing and crucial question that, as yet, remains unanswered: just how common is scientific misconduct? In the online, open-access journal PLoS ONE, Daniele Fanelli of the University of Edinburgh reports the first meta-analysis of surveys questioning scientists about their misbehaviours. The results suggest that altering or making up data is more frequent than previously estimated and might be particularly high in medical research.

Recent scandals like Hwang Woo-Suk's fake stem-cell lines or Jon Sudbø's made-up cancer trials have dramatically demonstrated that fraudulent research is very easy to publish, even in the most prestigious journals. The media and many scientists tend to explain away these cases as pathological deviations of a few "bad apples." Common sense and increasing evidence, however, suggest that these could be just the tip of the iceberg, because fraud and other more subtle forms of misconduct might be relatively frequent. The actual numbers, however, are a matter of great controversy.
Estimates based on indirect data (for example, official retractions of scientific papers or random data audits) have produced largely discrepant results. Therefore, many researchers have asked scientists directly, with surveys conducted in different countries and disciplines. However, they have used different methods and asked different questions, so their results also appeared inconclusive.

To make these surveys comparable, the meta-analysis focused on behaviours that actually distort scientific knowledge (excluding data on plagiarism and other kinds of malpractice) and extracted the frequency of scientists who recalled having committed a particular behaviour at least once, or who knew a colleague who did.

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, and up to 34% admitted to other questionable research practices including "failing to present data that contradict one's own previous research" and "dropping observations or data points from analyses based on a gut feeling that they were inaccurate."

In surveys that asked about the behaviour of colleagues, 14% knew someone who had fabricated, falsified or altered data, and up to 72% knew someone who had committed other questionable research practices.

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.

As in all surveys asking sensitive questions, it is likely that some respondents did not reply honestly, especially when asked about their own behaviour. Therefore, a frequency of 2% is probably a conservative estimate, while it remains unclear how the figure of 14% should be interpreted.

Journal reference:

• Fanelli D. How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4(5): e5738 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Adapted from materials provided by Public Library of Science, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

FWIW, I'm 99.9% sure a guy in my research group fabricated data to support his dissertation. It was pretty sickening. The guy was a total slacker (smart enough, but a total slacker) and wasn't making much progress. Then, all of a sudden the data just worked. At the time, it seemed danged lucky. Later I heard from others that none of his work was reproducible by others. Later after that, others saw how he'd fudged it. Talk about pure crap.

You'd like to think it doesn't happen, but there's no doubt it does. In that case, assuming I'm right, it was pure fabrication and that's obviously flat out wrong.

On the other hand, when you've got a data set and are trying to make sense of it, it can be difficult to know when you've crossed the line between pulling all the good information out of the data and "choking the data until it confesses" (meaning you throw a couple small leaps of faith into your analysis that may/may not be valid.) This is the scary part because analyzing data is often not a black and white issue.

 

[barfo]

Of all the things, this is the one I can agree with you on.

Well, I post a lot. It's bound to happen that sooner or later I'd post something you agreed with

And to me, there's no problem with a scientist standing by a model that's potentially erroneous or outdated--on either side. It's when they say things like "the debate is over" or "this is Truth" that I start to wonder.

I suspect most of the people saying those things aren't the scientists.

And as far as the "earth is flat" theory--that had been disproven by the Greeks before the time of Alexander the Great and could be easily observed every time there was a lunar eclipse. Clearly observable phenomena were not in accord with the "model" that many had in their minds of the shape of the earth, and due to the lack of education of much of the populace most couldn't grasp these concepts, even if they cared to. You could extrapolate that today into many, many realms--nuclear power, climate change/global warming, economic policy, etc. We're a relatively informed set of relatively intelligent people here, and are going back and forth over the science of these issues. You're telling me that some random group of Americans would have the first clue whether or not policy on any of these issues is based upon problematic research or debunked "science"? No...they trust their representatives to do the right thing. Unfortunately, I don't think many of those people are qualified to make the decisions about science-backed policy, either---but they're trying according to their worldview.

Agreed. And I think at this point, the politics (on both sides) has drowned out the science (on both sides).

barfo

 

[Shooter]

I bet this thread goes past 500 posts. Remarkable.

Aw, shucks.