Over on the thread The folly of blaming the Eastern U.S. heat wave on global warming there is a lively discussion going on between people that think the Eastern US heatwave hype by media and a few activist scientists is just bunk -vs- the defenders of the faith that insist it is a signature of global warming climate change climate disruption. Generally, these defenders are people that only look forward using model projections and pronouncements made by the IPCC, rather than look back at historical data and the propensity for nature to create such extremes, such as the nearly identical weather pattern that led to the 2010 Russian heatwave in which “climate change” was found blameless in a peer reviewed paper by NOAA.
In that thread there’s a comment by Gail Combs in response to the defenders of the faith (typically hit and run anonymous cowards) that I though worthy of elevating to a full post.
Gail Combs says:
Mr. B. says: July 7, 2012 at 6:48 pm
The IPCC and the National Academy of Science believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. Over 95% of Scientist worldwide believe global warming is real and directly related to human activity. If you don’t want to believe it you don’t have to. But I for one am more willing to listen to the conclusions of people who have devoted their education, time, study and energy to this issue than to some guy with a blog……
____________________________________
As a scientist, I KNOW other scientists will lie through their teeth when it comes to money or their career. I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data. I have also been fired more than once for refusing to falsify data upon direct order from my superior.
My personal experience with the “Honesty” and “Integrity” of scientists is that it is rare, most will go along with the herd or with higher authority rather than stick their neck out.
In my entire career I found only one other person willing to stand up for what was right instead of going along with what was easiest. She was also fired for her honesty. Most people are followers not leaders. I have read somewhere only one in two hundred is actually a leader and to control a group all that is needed is to identify and break that leader. That is what saying there is a “Consensus” and the labeling and denigrating of those who don’t go with the flow is all about. That practice alone should make people wonder about “The Science” Real science is about the quest for truth and facts not following “Authority” not being a member of the “A” list.
Here is the current state of “Honesty” in Science:
…..Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.
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. Meta-regression showed that self reports surveys, surveys using the words “falsification” or “fabrication”, and mailed surveys yielded lower percentages of misconduct. When these factors were controlled for, misconduct was reported more frequently by medical/pharmacological researchers than others.
Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.
More articles about the lack of honesty in science.
A Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform
ScienceDaily: US Scientists Significantly More Likely to Publish Fake Research, Study Finds
A few individual cases:
LISTINGS:
.naturalnews.com:Scientific fraud news, articles and information
Many here at WUWT have a degree in science, engineering or the maths. That is why we smell something very fishy with the IPCC and “The Science”
This is what Forty citizen auditors found when they looked at “the United Nations’ Nobel-winning climate bible.. the gold standard.”
…Contrary to statements by the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the celebrated 2007 report does not rely solely on research published in reputable scientific journals. It also cites press releases, newspaper and magazine clippings, working papers, student theses, discussion papers, and literature published by green advocacy groups. Such material is often called “grey literature.”
We’ve been told this report is the gold standard. We’ve been told it’s 100 percent peer-reviewed science. But thousands of sources cited by this report have not come within a mile of a scientific journal.
Based on the grading system used in US schools, 21 chapters in the IPCC report receive an F (they cite peer-reviewed sources less than 60% of the time), 4 chapters get a D, and 6 get a C. There are also 5 Bs and 8 As…. http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2010/04/14/climate-bible-gets-21-fs-on-report-card/
Sorry, the more we dig, and look at the data we can get our hands on (as any true scientist is required to do) the more it stinks. “The Team” knows this and that is why the data was not released upon simple requests, Freedom of Information Acts and when push finally came to shove the data was “Lost”
Phil Jones: The Dog Ate My Homework
From the “A goat ate my homework” excuse book: NIWA reveals NZ original climate data missing
Lonnie and Ellen, A Serial Non-Archiving Couple
If you want more on the supposed “Integrity” of those you seem to believe in see: WUWT Climategate links
Related articles
- Alarmists Use Extreme Weather to Revive Man-Made Global Warming (theaveragejoenewsblogg.com)
- Now That the Weather Is Going Crazy, Americans Believe In Climate Change … – Slate Magazine (blog) (slate.com)
- Stockholm sees coldest June day in 84 years (thelocal.se)
- Hank Campbell: IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official (junkscience.com)
- Comment On “Levitus Data On Ocean Forcing Confirms Skeptics, Falsifies IPCC” At Niche Modeling (pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com)
Gail Combs says: July 8, 2012 at 10:57 am
And not only by “hiding the data”, IMHO. These noble climate scientists seem to want to have everything both ways, so that even when they’re wrong, they’re right!
By way of example, I tried to have a conversation with an IPCC Coordinating Lead Author almost a year ago.
It was over a very simple claim he had made that – by the IPCC’s very own numbers – I had shown to be incorrect. i.e. that the Summary for Policymakers of the SRREN report was “approved by all 194 countries”. Another claim of his that I had questioned was:
After a few emails in which he had indicated that he intended to respond, he simply disappeared!
A few weeks ago, I happened to encounter him on twitter. And by inference he accused me of “bad faith” and “rhetorical trickery” – which was his very belated “excuse” for disappearing. When I pointed out that we must have “different definitions of good faith”, his response was, “As I gathered from your other blog posts, in your world the IPCC is always wrong or evil or stupid, so no need to discuss anything.”.
From which, at this point, I can only conclude that his ability to objectively “assess” the suitability of material for inclusion in an IPCC report leaves me with considerably less than a high level of confidence!
I have been going through the international blueprint today involving transformational higher ed reform internationally. Again coming out of the UN. The change in the nature of the doctoral programs and the research emphasis appears to me to create further corrupting effects on this entire process. That would be consistent with a different UN report seeking UN approval before countries could take innovations into the production phase.
Bottom line is until the source and reasons for the poisoning of so much of the grant process is better known, we will have an increasingly more difficult time getting non-politically directed research with a desired conclusion prompting the funding.
All feeding into a centrally planned and coordinated economy around green principles. All benefiting politicians, govt employees and grant recipients, and connected Big Business.
Little prosperity for the typical person.
Unlike a certain chemistry professor on you-tube, I base credibility rankings not by the attributes of the purveyor of information but by the quality of the information itself. If a source of information “conveniently” leaves out pertinent information that source loses all credibility with me. Invariably, EVERY source of information that advocates climate change legislation while claiming to be objective (like NASA and NOAA) leave out highly pertinent information to the central questions involved (GW vs. AGW vs. CAGW).
For example: the global temperature from circa 1880 to present without disclosing the cooling period just prior to the industrial revolution and the fact that the temperatures began to rise BEFORE the industrial revolution.
Another example: showing pictures of glaciers circa 1979 and 2007 without disclosing that there was a cooling period in the just prior (Ice Age Scare circa 1970’s).
The pro-climate change action sources are replete with such obvious examples of Zohnerism.
The classic example I used for teaching my son about critical thinking is the ban DHMO “controversy”. There’s the “ban DHMO” website ( http://www.dhmo.org/ ) and the “friends” of DHMO website ( http://www.armory.com/~crisper/DHMO/ ), both are careful not to give away the punch line. The point being that leaving out (non-disclosure) one crucial (pertinent) bit of information in this case the common name of the chemical makes a decision or course of action seem reasonable when in fact it is completely and utterly unreasonable.
I challenge any of the defenders of the CAGW faith to cite one source of “scientific” information about GW in support of “action” that I can’t find some pertinent fact they’ve conveniently failed to disclose. I’ve been following this issue off and on since 1994 and have yet to see a pro-action on climate change information source or argument that doesn’t engage in Zohnerism. This type of activity is about as anti-science as one can get. There’s absolutely no honesty or integrity in engaging in Zohnerism and therefore those that engage in it have absolutely no credibility with me.
By contrast the WUWT reference pages (and comments) lay all the information bare for all to see whether in support of inaction or action. Best site by far for exposing the big picture IMO.
Owen,
You can hardly excuse corruption in government science by pointing out corruption in the financial industry. And even if you want to compare those apple and oranges, recall that well over $100 BILLION has been wasted on “climate studies” by government agencies. Bernie Madoff pales in comparison.
At least in the private sector there is regulation, and competition. Where is the government’s competition? And it is clear the government does not regulate itself.
Owen says: July 8, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Gail,
I am also a scientist. You make it sound like scientific research is a cesspool inhabited by greedy, self-serving liars. With all that lying it is remarkable that science has unraveled so much of cellular chemistry, for example…..
___________________________________
No, I made scientists back into human beings who are just as likely to do a good deed as they are to do a bad deed. It is putting scientists on a pedestal and treating them like some sort of god anointed priests instead of the way we treat everyone else that has gotten us into this trouble.
I am certainly well aware of the fact that science has made incredible advances. My Grandparents went from the horse and buggy age to the age of man walking on the moon during their life time. The fact that some bad apples are taking that incredible advancement and now are using it to shield their nasty deeds not only saddens me it makes me ANGRY.
If you are a scientist then why are you not absolutely LIVID to discover North Carolina clinical research organization Cetero Research allegedly falsified clinical trial documents and test results over a five-year period. These SOBs faked DRUG trials for Gosh sakes! For all you know your wife or child may end up taking one of those drugs that were never ever tested. And you want to defend them???
Did you even bother to read Patrick comment @ur momisugly July 8, 2012 at 10:54 am
In my case it was three planes that went down due to substandard engine parts. I quit when the company involved refused to fire the Tech who I caught falsifying data.
The wonders discovered by the many excellent scientists should never ever be used to excuse the frauds and liars. Nor should it be used to excuse the current shoddy practices of the peer-reviewed journals (No data). As scientists it is up to us to scream bloody murder and get this mess cleaned up BEFORE the general public figures out exactly how bad it is and believe me they are already waking up.
Smokey says:
July 8, 2012 at 3:54 pm
Owen,
You can hardly excuse corruption in government science by pointing out corruption in the financial industry….
_____________________
Smokey, it is not just government funded scientists but ALL scientists. If you are Union worker you have some clout. If you are a hourly employee you have less clout but still some clout. If you are a professional engineer and are certified you have clout because of the government certification, if you are a tenured teacher/professor you have some protection but a salaried Scientist has NOTHING. He is an “at-will employee”
This means your employer can order you to lie, to falsify a Certificate of Analysis or report or paper and you have ZERO recourse. I know because I checked with a lawyer very early in my career. You can report questionable practices to a government agency but that is worse than useless depending on who knows who. (See government-industry revolving door ) You may just find yourself unemployed as a friend of mine did after reporting fraud to a government official who is a buddy of the companies CEO.
Unfortunately the rot is very very deep in our civilization and it is only as a group that we have any chance of combating it.
Gail,
In spite of corruption in some, perhaps many, instances, the body of work of scientists has been outstanding – in all areas, including climate science. In other words, instances of corruption have not negated (but may have slowed) our growing understanding of the physical universe.
Owen says:
The march of science today is extraordinary and beyond the imagination of humans a mere two centuries ago. And all carried out by lying cheaters.
Actually the march of “science” is only extraordinary in certain areas. Mostly it is in such “hard” areas that fakery is near impossible. Physics, chemistry, genetics, electronics.
The “soft” sciences (or wanna-be sciences such as economics) do not boast the same record. The march of science in psychiatry, for example, is pedestrian to put it mildly – despite enormous public interest and large numbers of psychiatrists.
Moreover the hard sciences had plenty of trouble in their early years too. The dead ends in chemistry were quite extensive (phlogiston, “organic” via “inorganic”, etc). Climate science will one day get to that point, but currently we are in the early days and almost every theory will not only be wrong, but dramatically wrong.
Woohoo Gail! What a slap down, definitely a keeper rejoinder!
I’d like to apologise, sort of, maybe, like…
Actually, I’d rather defend many of those scientists who followed the well traveled path. Whether it was a fear of their superiors, change, starvation, peers, being different or angry spouses; most scientists and engineers I’ve worked with were determined to do a good job, within their constraints and chains. Deliberate fraud for personal gain or fame was not common amongst the workers, but as you described every one is an unfailing follower and hate to rock their boats.
I agree with you Sean. Only, when I read your simple summation, I had a sudden Dilbert moment about another lady. One who has a certain fist of… But then I wouldn’t want to chance insulting Gail…
moderator,
It seems my comment has been lost. Can you rescue it from….where ever?
[REPLY: It’s not here. Sorry. Submit it again. -REP]
That is really interesting. Noteworthy, even. It seems like somebody would have mentioned it.
I call hyperbole; extrapolation to the ‘scale of world’ based on limited-sphere work experience (AND we don’t know the specific details of the stories related anecdotally).
(Boeing planes are still flying and Intel microprocessors are still HIGHLY reliable (all my Wintel PCs up through Core2 Duo are USED (and Dells to boot) plus the 80386 and a Pentium 166 with Intel uPs still operational too; engineering and the SCIENCE (materials science, solid-state physics etc) behind it, I contend, has not been corrupted to the extent expressed by the poster.)
Sorry mods, I feel compelled to weigh-in with some balance here (and note: I do not contend there is zero corruption; see 1st post of mine much further upthread.)
.
I sometimes think the accurate way to report this stuff is “95% of the scientists who are paid to say it say is a real, man-made, and imminent disaster….” (I keep thinking about the doctors that said smoking Camels was good for you.)
A question–if you examined ALL scientists (what ever that turns out to mean), would 95% of them know as much about climate as the average corn farmer does?
Found it on Gavin’s page
RiHo08 says:
July 8, 2012 at 10:36 am
Gail Combs
Thanx for the E.M.Smith article. This is the second time I have read it and I like the stitching together of pieces of human history on the bumpy climate road.
What is intriguing to me is the predictions of climate change around 2030. These are the dates that Robert Ellison (Chief Hydrologist aka Captain Kangaroo aka…) suggests will be the time for another regime change based upon oceanic/atmospheric regime changes ala Tsonis et al.
Hmmm. Arriving at similar prediction dates using two different approaches: one, observational and a 12000 year perspective and the other observing recent ocean currents and atmospheric pressure episodes.
Of course Smith and Captain Kangaroo could be in cahoots and are in the pay of big oil and are just trying to confuse us muddle-headed skeptics. But, a prediction is a prediction, and some of us will be around to see: true or false.
Gail, the leading post/article was a complete SLAP DOWN. If I ever need a spanking I’m sure you can/will deliver it. But then, I’m a ‘climate realist’ so it won’t be necessary 😉
It is obvious that the only way to get any sense into the so-called ‘believers’ will be slapping/spanking. They are getting it now. The slap downs that is. Hopefully they will soon really get it.
Ignorance can be cured with knowledge. Fraud is best cured with incarceration. The latter will be money well spent. It will stop the spread of an awful disease afflicting the so-called ‘climate science’ community.
_Jim says:
July 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Gail Combs. says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:20 pm
…
Unfortunately the rot is very very deep in our civilization and it is only as a group that we have any chance of combating it.
I call hyperbole; extrapolation to the ‘scale of world’ based on limited-sphere work experience (AND we don’t know the specific details of the stories related anecdotally)….
_______________________________
Fine. The exact problem was leaching of Lead and Bismuth into turbine aircraft blades during molding. Lead and bismuth make the metal brittle. FAA investigation showed the three planes went down because the lead and bismuth contamination was higher than allowed limits in the turbine blades and those parts were traced back to the company I worked for.
There was a heck of a lot more politics involved but that was the scientific end of it. The tech involved was the one who did the trace mineral analysis. I was the pigeon who signed off on her work and therefore would be the one hung out to dry if another plane went down so I left. (I have no desire to be sued for defamation so that is all I will say on the subject)
Given the problems that trace contamination caused in those blades one wonders just how good the Chinese manufactured blades for wind turbines are….
Owen says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Gail,
In spite of corruption in some, perhaps many, instances, the body of work of scientists has been outstanding – in all areas, including climate science. In other words, instances of corruption have not negated (but may have slowed) our growing understanding of the physical universe.
——————-
With all do respect…I think you’re confusing Normal Science with Post-normal Sciences [ The AGW – CAGW sciences ].
What happens in Normal Science to a hypothesis when a divergence happens from that hypothesis?
Oh, and _jim you seem to think I sat in a cave and only worked for one company so my experience was “small” Hate to break it to you but I worked for several companies (only one was honest) and belonged to ACS and ASQ. I had to have 18cr/3 years so I took at least one college course and a couple of seminars a semester for the past thirty odd years. I met a lot of people and we talked about QC/lab problems such as flinching and how to spot other data manipulation. Believe me the falsification of data and pressure from upper management is very common and the source of much complaining at seminars at least in QC circles.
From your comments you are either very young or oblivious.
highflight56433 says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling. So , the folks like Anthony are the sheep dogs; as the folks who read and participate in the conquest of truth we see at this blog, what are you? The wolf, sheep dog, or sheep?
============================================
Well, I humbly consider me to be a sort of veterinarian for both sheep and sheep dogs. And we need more active sheep like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gEDUDmZkyc .
“It has been labelled “post-normal” science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus…on the process of science – who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy…The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific
activity.”
“…‘self-evidently’ dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth-seeking…scientists – and politicians – must trade truth for influence. What matters about climate change is not whether we can predict the future with some desired level of certainty and accuracy.”
-Mike Hulme
Per Owen:
“Big money in business has also led to corruption, and on a far large scale that big science. Just look at the financial industries in the past decade – and that debacle cost this country far more than big science has spent.”
Of course neither the “red lining” threat nor the Fed backed Fannie Mae’s eager acceptance of substandard loans had anything to do with the meltdown. I know because I saw it on TV! A Congressional Committee gave a clean bill of health to the coercive and corrupt lending practices that helped to shape this festering mess. Those advising prudence were, of course, “right wing radical racists of the Republican Party”!!
This nonsense repeated often enough by the likes Owen ends up being considered to be true.
Look to the past regarding CAGW or any other major theories before you accept them.
Ray
Bill Tuttle says:
July 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Full report on the “consensus” here: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
====================================================
The study actually proves the opposite, if you consider some details: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/consensus-argument-proves-climate-science-is-political/#comment-972119
On the Russian heat wave:
“likely to become increasingly frequent”
“could not be entirely ruled out”
“glimpse into the region’s future”
“signal of a warming climate”
“on the cusp of a period in which the risk of extreme heat events will increase rapidly”
“possibility of more such events ”
Yeah, they “officially” said it was due to weather. But with all the “wink-wink” statements, they really believe it was caused by global warming.
Owen says:
July 8, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Gail,
In spite of corruption in some, perhaps many, instances, the body of work of scientists has been outstanding – in all areas, including climate science. In other words, instances of corruption have not negated (but may have slowed) our growing understanding of the physical universe.
=====================================================================
What has stood out in the field of climate science is witholding data, broken hockey sticks, big money and bogus policies. To name just a few things. What has “climate science” actually produced besides headlines and fear and taxes? The sciences you’d like to link it to have produced tangible, provable results despite the shortcomings in the system Gail pointed out. “Climate science” is as solid as thin air.
highflight56433 says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:42 am
As for leadership, yes the sheep are many, the sheep dog is few, and the wolves are circling. So , the folks like Anthony are the sheep dogs; as the folks who read and participate in the conquest of truth we see at this blog, what are you? The wolf, sheep dog, or sheep?
=================================================================
I’m not sure which you’d call me but I knew what BS was before I ever heard of WUWT or SEPP or Junksciene.com.
I’ve leaned from such sites. I haven’t been led by them.