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)
My last comment may have come off as harsh. I didn’t mean it that way. Just emphasing for the warmist out there that many of us “deniers” can think for ourselves without being told what to think.
Greg House says:
July 8, 2012 at 6:54 pm
…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 .
_____________________________________\
Darn it Greg, I have a herd of sheep outside my back door and two bottle lambs I just fed and have to feed again in the morning. With a 200 lb ram that looks like this how am I going to be able to sleep after watching that? ROTFLMAO
Humans and honesty. Remember the Challenger disaster? An engineer recommended against a launch, because it was, in his opinion, too cold. But there was huge pressure to launch, and he was asked to put his management hat on. They launched.
On being quizzed about the probability of a failure in the space shuttle, managers estimated the probability at 1 in 300,000. That is, you could fly the thing every day for a few hundred years without it failing. Surely only a moron could say this with a straight face.
But these people were found out by reality.
And that is the key with science. You might fudge something quite successfully, but if what you are doing is important, it will be redone by others, and you’ll be found out. Not always straight away (look at Milliken and the history of the electron’s charge), but eventually. For this reason, I don’t think that climate scientists will commit egregious deceptions. They are smart enough to know that their work will be scrutinised by other smart people, and any errors will be found. Not by bloggers, but by their peers. And the last thing they want to do is look like idiots.
REPLY: “Not by bloggers…” yeah sure. There’s that holier than thou academic side of you again. I’ll bet you think internists and patent clerks can’t contribute anything either. Your wrongness about who can contribute is exceeded only by your condescension. If this is all a waste of time to you, then take a hike rather than lecture down to us, if it isn’t kindly shut the hell up and let’s compare publications later – Anthony
The good old days of real science and research.
Thought I would share….worth a peek in spite of the title. .
Part 2, ya know>>> Technology eh?
Gail Combs. says:
July 8, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Frank Kotler says:
July 8, 2012 at 2:43 pm
Ahhh… Gail Combs: a scientist who also knows how to get manure onto a fork. (there may be a connection!)
_________________________
Of Course there is a connection! We use getting manure onto a fork to teach kids something about PHYSICS. If you do not understand physics you can’t get the manure onto the fork – simple.
(I wonder how many people with physics backgrounds are now scratching their heads trying to figure out the connection)
——————————————————-
Perhaps some farmers trying to figure out what it is they understand about physics, too. Newton’s First Law of Motion, innit?
The “connection” I had in mind was your ability to recognize what is being shoveled by… certain segments of “science”.
As a scientist (not in climatology) for many years, I have personally dealt with the pressures of publishing and obtaining grant funding, and I think most scientists operate ethically most of the time. However, the pressures are real and make it more difficult to let the data lead us and maintain an objective style of science. I have been thinking about solutions that would maintain a vigorous, dynamic scientific enterprise, enhance the implementation of basic science for human good (e.g., translational medicine), and avoid the types of problems discussed here.
I taught in a required graduate course on scientific ethics for several years, and I presented Bauer’s puzzle-filter definition of science as most compatible with my experience in science. I also discussed some of Popper’s ideas and a bit of Kuhn. I only recently noticed that I didn’t, and most scientists don’t give a passing thought to Bacon and his idea that objectivity should be the principle goal in science. I know that there are aspects of Bacon’s philosophy of science that are oversimplified and that he ignored the real and obvious fact that no one can be truly objective, because our presuppositions and cultural norms influence the framework within which we view all of science. However, I am becoming convinced that it is time to revive Bacon and return to a science in which objectivity and careful identification of all our presuppositions and assumptions would be the ideal for normal operation in science.
Gunga Din says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:16 pm
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.
==================================================
“Climate science” should be closed for 70 years, this is the only solution.
I know, I have already said that, but it is important.
Of course, I do not mean meteorology, they are mostly honest people and do what they can to help us.
highflight56433 says: @ur momisugly 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…
====================================
Gunga Din says: @ur momisugly July 8, 2012 at 7:29 pm
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.
====================================
A goat? Much more intelligent than a sheep and they don’t herd worth a darn compared to sheep. They remind me of cats who are even more independent minded.
I just read Dan Ariely’s latest book, ‘The Honest Truth About Dishonesty’. In it, there’s an experiment where people are given the option of buying a ‘green’ product. If they buy the green product they then feel ‘licensed’ to cheat more. Also, in other experiments when people feel they are being altruistic, they also cheat more. There are so many examples in his book of the archetypal examples of the type of cheating going on in this debate where the participants either feel justified or ‘licensed’ to behave the way they do. I’d love to see some more experiments or research by behavioral scientists on the behaviors of participants in this debate. Fascinating.
Stephen Pruett says:
July 8, 2012 at 8:26 pm
….. I have been thinking about solutions that would maintain a vigorous, dynamic scientific enterprise, enhance the implementation of basic science for human good (e.g., translational medicine), and avoid the types of problems discussed here.
I taught in a required graduate course on scientific ethics for several years,…. However, I am becoming convinced that it is time to revive Bacon and return to a science in which objectivity and careful identification of all our presuppositions and assumptions would be the ideal for normal operation in science…..
_____________________________
Thank You.
This is the type of stuff that we need to bring back to the field of science. The problem, and it is a growing problem, has to be acknowledged and addressed. Students have to be prepared for the challenges to ethical behavior they will have to face and be given the tools to deal with them.
It was a complete shocker to me to be asked to falsify a Certificate of Analysis a month into my first job and I was ill prepared to deal with it. Hopefully your students have the preparation they need to face similar situations.
Total BS as usual by John Brookes. It’s scary to see that this kind of a person is in charge of educating students. The flaws in climate science were not found out by peers or peer reviews or by fellow scientists. It is bloggers who successfully showed up the trash put out by ” climate scientists ” which were pal reviewed. As fate as climate science is concerned bloggers have exhibited more knowledge, skill, talent and hnoesty than any AGW supporting climate scientist and their pals.
And you, John Brookes are a prime example of such dishonest behaviour as evidenced by your trolling here and in Jo Nova’s blogs, deliberately and wantonly indulging in spreading untruths.
John Brookes says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I don’t think that climate scientists will commit egregious deceptions. They are smart enough to know that their work will be scrutinised by other smart people, and any errors will be found. Not by bloggers, but by their peers. And the last thing they want to do is look like idiots.
========================================================
Yeah, and now let us tell people the truth. Climate (AGW) scientists commit egregious deceptions. They are smart enough to know that their deceptions will be covered up by their colleagues who commit egregious deceptions too. Of course, they can be easily exposed just by looking at their basic claims, but they have a propaganda machine, corrupt politicians and not to forget useful idiots on their side, so they can successfully fool a lot of people.
“””””…..Mooloo says:
July 8, 2012 at 5:15 pm
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……”””””
Well Ricky Ricardo’s P-sick-keyistry, with the accent on the “sick”, is a science only in the same sense that Astrology is a science.
The thought of counselors getting their jollies listening to the most intimate personal details about the most private matters of people’s lives, is enough to make one retch. Anyone who will openly discuss what their partners presume is a confidential interpersonal matter is likely beyond rescue anyway. Certainly, that indiscretion would be the end of any relationship. And these pseudo psychologists revel in it.
The idea that anyone can know what is going on in another person’s mind, is pure phantasy. Nobody could ever guess just what is going on in my mind, as I type this; they couldn’t even correctly guess what the first digit of the Dewey Decimal category is.
Studying behavior (Psychology) certainly qualifies as a science; but Psychiatry is akin to the study of crop circles; which are, in contrast, at least pretty to look at.
Greg House says: @ur momisugly July 8, 2012 at 8:57 pm
“Climate science” should be closed for 70 years, this is the only solution.
I know, I have already said that, but it is important.
Of course, I do not mean meteorology, they are mostly honest people and do what they can to help us.
_________________________________
Add Ecoscience to the mix. It is just as badly “contaminated” with the “Post-Normal” crowd.
Greg House: ““Climate science” should be closed for 70 years, this is the only solution”. I understand what you mean. However, Lysenkoism should be closed forever. Sometimes, our enterprises may be beyond repair.
Greg House says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:07 pm
@ur momisugly me (July 8, 2012 at 12:59 pm):
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
You betchum, Red Ryder. I only focused on the source of the “95%” AGW meme, but now that you bring it up, still another way of looking at it is “only 0.06% of actively-publishing climate scientists we surveyed admit they believe in AGW.”
Fun with numbers.
John Brookes says:
July 8, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I don’t think that climate scientists will commit egregious deceptions.
Does that statement mean that you don’t think climate scientists are venal enough to commit egregious deceptions or that you don’t think climate scientists will be foolish enough to continue to commit egregious deceptions?
Gail Combs says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:20 pm
It was a complete shocker to me to be asked to falsify a Certificate of Analysis a month into my first job and I was ill prepared to deal with it.
Fortunately for us pilots, Gail, the majority of aircraft parts inspectors/certifiers share your ethic.
Unfortunately for us pilots, there are still government suppliers who knowingly buy counterfeit parts from China.
Even more unfortunately, the ChiComs have gotten very *good* at counterfeiting aircraft parts…
Jim said: (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.)
This is typical from a slashdotter wanting to pile-on. Very little real-world experience, but supremely confident because s/he can fix his Mom’s computers and feel superior while doing so.
Shall I go on about armchair experts as compared to Watts’ ACTUAL WORK or should a taunting be required again?
Thomas Hobbes says: July 8, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Those psychological “studies” were done decades ago by both sides. Neither side likely had truth in mind.
A good article, the most illuminating part for me was that the USA has an “Office of Research Integrity”
http://ori.hhs.gov/
Has anyone reported some of the main players in the climate industry to this organisation?
They seem to come down hard on bad research in the medical community.
“The impacts of global warming fall disproportionately on the poor.
This means that global warming is not just a scientific issue, but a class issue.
…we have a choice between Socialism and Barbarism, with no middle ground.
…the choice is stark: Socialism or Extinction.”
“For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own.”
The above statements are from a July 6th article on the website of the The International Marxist Tendency, entitled: “Global Warming: a Marxist perspective”
These statements are from Lisa P Jackson, head of the EPA, prior to the Rio beanfest
“As Rio+20, the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit, approaches in June, we have a chance to learn lessons, build partnerships and put in place innovative strategies that can reshape the economic and environmental future of our entire planet. It is the rarest of opportunities to truly change the world, and make a difference that will benefit billions of people”
This was from a speech in January this year, at the EPA Observance of Martin Luther King Jr. Day
“…..environmentalism followed in the footsteps of the Civil Rights movement. Today we continue to take direct inspiration from Dr. King, especially in our fight for environmental justice. Environmental justice is one of my top priorities for my time at the EPA, and it is something we are working to include in each and every initiative and decision the agency makes.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/lisa_p_jackson_epa_administrator_fulfilling_the_un_mission.html
I forgot the link for the Marxist Tendency, so sorry.
http://www.marxist.com/global-warming-marxist-perspective.htm
They do have a little insight:
“…under capitalism, investment will not be directed into the development of new industries if it is not profitable.”
“Green investment mostly took the form of large state subsidies, which were a direct transfer of funds from the public purse into private profits.”
Bill Tuttle says: @ur momisugly July 9, 2012 at 12:09 am
Fortunately for us pilots, Gail, the majority of aircraft parts inspectors/certifiers share your ethic.
Unfortunately for us pilots, there are still government suppliers who knowingly buy counterfeit parts from China.
Even more unfortunately, the ChiComs have gotten very *good* at counterfeiting aircraft parts…
_______________________
That is one of the reasons I really hate ISO and “Just in Time” I had some real knock down drag out fights with upper management on the subject of incoming inspection. It usually took a major $$$$ mess from bad material to convince each company to at least do limited incoming inspection.
One of the guys I ran into at a seminar a couple of decades ago, told me about the Chinese counterfeited aircraft parts problem. In spite of company policy (ISO) he grabbed some samples of incoming bolts and found those nice high grade bolts were nothing but pot metal and sheared at a very low strength.
I am amazed that we have not had more airline accidents from Chinese substandard parts. If we have not it is probably thanks to that guy who was making sure to pass the information along to everyone he met in the Quality field.
At my first ISO seminar in the early eighties I sat next to a recent Russian immigrant. During the break he commented bitterly that ISO was the same system used in the USSR and it did not work. Over two decades latter the members of ASQ agreed with him.
Here are a couple of articles by Scott Dalgleish of ASQ who identifies some of my dislikes.
(I really hate Six Sigma too)
Probing the Limits: ASQ– A Consultant’s Promotional Tool?
(it has a very interesting comment on ASQ, ISO and the Columbia Shuttle Accident Report,)
Probing the Limits
ISO 9000: More Hindrance Than Help
Probing the Limits: ISO 9001 Proves Ineffective
And the response from the ASQ membership.
See this article: http://www.systemsthinking.co.uk/3-1-article.asp for a discussion of the origins of ISO 9000, what is wrong with it, and why. In the article Admiral Hyman Rickover was concerned with bad quality that resulted from bad management. ISO 9000 addresses conformity to standards instead of improvement of management. The Japanese who were trained in QUALITY IMPROVEMENT by Dr. Demming, father of the modern Quality Movement, do not endorse ISO.
ISO is an overlooked part of the Agenda 21/Global Governance problem. I made the link years ago when I found out that the “Guide to Good Farming Practices” was a collaborative effort between the World Trade Organization, the United Nations (FAO & OIE) and ISO. This unholy threesome have been busy over the past decades writing “internationally established guidelines” for just about everything starting with how we grow food. Since I first stumbled onto the “Draft Guide to Good Farming Practices” years ago that draft has proliferated into a whole bookcase full of farm practice guidelines. link For example WHO guidelines on good agricultural and collection Practices (GACP) for medicinal plants Seems the UN even wants to tell the Shaman and Witch Doctor how to collect their herbs /sarc.
Dr Deming the father of the modern Quality Revolution had this to say on the topic of Quality:
No amount of paperwork, or traceability or other magic wands can make up for the attitude of top management whether it is scientific research or Quality. Turning control of quality and food safety over to a paperwork system directed by a top Management whose first (and only) concern is Profit is the act of a madmen and that is the system our “Global Governance” leaders are striving for.
GAIL C:-) YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
and to this chap,
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. Metabolic reactions, cellular protein machinery, signalling pathways, etc have been elucidated to a level that has allowed the knowledge-based design of a whole new wave of wonder drugs. 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. Imagine! Oh wait, I can anticipate your poisoned response already – it is only climate scientists that are liars and cheaters.
==============================
No mate but quite a LOT of the supposed medical wonders are also BIG FAT LIES!
that KILL people.
celebrex, statins , Baxters 72kg of live H5N1 they sent to eu in 09, supposedly biolevel 3/4 controls etc etc that WOULD have killed many many thousands , they got a slap on the wrist. and blamed a cleaner.
and one recent one I found.
http://www.in-pharmatechnologist.com/Regulatory-Safety/FDA-publishes-Celltex-Therapeutics-inspection-483/?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter%2BDaily&c=j%2FnIs1FdlzUDI%2BCN8gLC1A%3D%3D
no active ingredient, contaminated etc etc.
and the coverup over at CDC (yet again) over crappy lab safety standards,
not that long after that young lad died in 18hrs after working with?
neisseria.
amazing he was the only death really.
=================
as someone else said, you want me to TRUST what you say, you show me the proof the workings and let ME make a truly informed decision.
and boy does that! go for GMO crapfoods.
ALL the data, all of the time.