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)
[SNIP that is Gail Combs writing from an elevated comment as a post, not Mr. Watts. Check your own perceptions before making angry insults ~mod]
This should be added to the comments from other scientists: German Physicist/Cabaret Artist Vince Ebert On Climate Science: “Einstein, Planck, Schrödinger Got To Be Rolling In Their Graves”
….Vince Ebert majored in experimental solid state physics at the Julius Maximilian University in Würzburg. He worked as a consultant at Ogilvy & Mather Dataconsult in Frankfurt.
Here are a few experiences I have had over the years concerning ‘scientists’:
1. There are labyrinthine procedures for handling, using and disposing of radioactivity in science labs. There are supposedly hefty sanctions for breaches. I worked in a lab where multiple breaches occurred (> 5000cpm ‘spillages’ left uncleaned up) over an 18 month period and twice the Institute Radiation Protection Officer had the whole group in a room supposedly reading the riot act. One day later, I was leaving at 11pm and, knowing that radioactivity had been used that evening, did a quick check of other people’s workspaces to see what gave. I found > 500cpm behind a perspex shield, left a note on a post-it note and went home to bed. I came in the next morning and the lab was in uproar. We now knew who had caused the problem and they started accusing others of planting it. I and another went around monitoring, documenting and ultimately signing a contemporaneous report of the spillages, which included enzyme tubes subsequently returned to -20C freezers, microfuges, Eppendorf tubes in general waste bins. The lab expected action. All we got from the Professor was a cover up. As I said at the time: ‘everyone must now act in their own best interests’. I left research science less than a year later, the camel’s back having been broken. It wasn’t the spillage so much as the attitude that repeated exposure of people in their 20s, not yet parents, to radioactivity is consistent with a medical research vocation.
2. For many scientists, the ‘literature’ means peer reviewed literature, not that plus patent filings plus commercial knowledge. I have done at least 2 dozen due diligence exercises where scientists claimed ‘world-leading technology’ and I have rubbished the claim by one morning of searches. If you claim you have ‘world leading technology’ as a scientist, it should imply that you have carried out suitable checks to verify that claim. It very rarely happens in my experience.
3. Even if scientists have a patent filed, they often claim the ability to operate commercially without considering how easy it is to break such claims. I evaluated some Electrocardiogram analytical software once and it took me 10 minutes to see how to break the patent claims. The statement that ‘no-one else can operate in this field’ was not sustained. Commercial naivety probably, but when requesting £250k investment, not very professional.
4. There are scientists out there who will play the aspirant entrepreneur when all they really want to do is to keep doing research and going to conferences. It’s one of the most difficult things to prove up front in due diligence and sometimes you have to just refuse funding without mentioning that. If you spend £250k claiming to want to commercialise something when actually you don’t, I call that fraud by scientists. It’s not scientific fraud per se, but defrauding just those investors who want to believe in scientists and will back risky early-stage stuff. I’ve seen it two or three times.
5. There are scientists out there who don’t have many ideas but talk about ‘ideas being cheap’ in the presence of those with many ideas but fewer publications. Some call that ‘competitive behaviour’, others call it sponging. Whatever it is, it doesn’t paint scientists in a very good light sometimes.
6. There are some very senior scientists, Professors, even, who write articles in national newspapers with the aim of getting a blogger to comment on their work, since their ideas are valuable for research but won’t get funding as they aren’t Professors or even lecturers. Some would call that business, some would call it sharp practice. It doesn’t sit well wiith those claiming to be part of an oppressed segment of society…….
7. Many University Professors are now part of the surveillance states which are HEIs. I would testify before the UK Parliament about organisations and individuals who behaved this way but it wouldn’t stand up in a court of law. I say this not to throw wild accusations around but to make sure no-one is in any doubt about what goes on. I tested this by writing documents on a private PC and seeking reactions from Professors. I got them. In the Marines, you would use that confirmation to bump someone off. In democracy and ‘our universities’, you have to just tolerate it. It’s why I don’t see universities as hallowed institutions, to be frank……
8. Many Professors want free research/due diligence for grant applications/start-up funding but don’t want the person doing that research to be any part of it. Strange that they don’t pay for that upfront then, isn’t it? It’s called using people. It’s a default mode amongst many Professors.
9. Most Professors want admiration more than anything. They are vain, egotistical and highly power-centric. They are top dog in their own small worlds and don’t understand bowing to greater knowledge outside their spheres of expertise. Scientific and rational, such behaviour is not. Common, I am sorry to say, it most certainly is.
Let me state that you’ll find similar traits amongst corporate financiers, so I merely ascribe these behaviour patterns as evidence that scientists are human beings just like everyone else.
Grubby, avaricious ones sometimes.
But that doesn’t make all scientists like that.
Just some of them.
‘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.’
I can confirm that US foreign policy in the UK acts upon just such a premise……
Gail Combs says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:20 am
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.
Most have been Class C or D. I get updates from a bud who was in the NTSB and still has contacts. The military accidents usually don’t get publicized.
Our QC guy once found a counterfeit UH-1 tail rotor blade by accident — the data plate on the grip fell off because they used fish glue instead of epoxy to stick it on.
Gail Combs says:
July 9, 2012 at 5:20 am
…and has suggested that companies eliminate ISO 9000 altogether from their quality management systems.
Graveyard Humor Anecdote: We found a dirtbag bomb factory in Kirkuk in 2009, complete with fully assembled EFPIEDs (explosively-formed penetrator IEDs) manufactured in Iran. The penetrator disks were all stamped “ISO 9000 Compliant”…
Gail Combs says:
July 8, 2012 at 9:06 pm
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 think this is the the first time I’ve ever been called “a goat” with it meant as a compliment.
[Moderator’s Point of Order: If Gail says it’s a compliment, it’s a compliment. Don’t look a gift goat in the mouth. -REP]
My experience in basic research is pretty much the opposite of Gail’s. Scientists are much more honest that other groups (especially businessmen and politicians) because their careers and jobs depend on honesty. Many of my best publications report results different from expection and contrary to the main theory at the time. Perhaps it is different in applied science such as pharmacueticals and other areas where employers pressure scientists for favorable results. On the other hand, scientists in basic research have every incentive to overcome prevailing theory–that’s how one makes a reputation. So, I completely disagree with the premise that scientists in a field such as climate science have incentives to be dishonest. The reality is qute the opposite.
Stephen Pruett says:
July 8, 2012 at 8:26 pm
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.
————
A very interesting comment. I’ve just been reading “Matters of Exchange: Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden Age” which is about the period in which Francis Bacon lived. One of the author’s arguments is that the fact that the Scientific Revolution coincided with the Age of Exploration is no coincidence. Scholars were embarked upon the exploration of nature as a part of world exploration, and what drove this in part was a desire to discover objective facts or knowledge of nature. Commerce and the desire to improve medicine and diet and worldly goods were also part and parcel of this program. This was a new project for humanity, especially in contrast with the focus on philosophy, spirituality and abstract truth that preceded it.
I suspect Bacon went out the window in the 1960s, with so much else of Western Civilization. Objectivity implies Truth, and that would never do in modern academe (or at least in the Arts faculties).
Your comment raises the question, then, as to how the Global Warming pseudoscientific program differs from the eugenics studies and propaganda of the early 20th century. It is highly doubtful that scientists in that era would have embraced the Global Warming arguments, but they did embrace the equally ideological eugenics ideas. This is something to mull over.
Gunga Din says:
July 9, 2012 at 1:45 pm
…. I think this is the the first time I’ve ever been called “a goat” with it meant as a compliment.
[Moderator’s Point of Order: If Gail says it’s a compliment, it’s a compliment. Don’t look a gift goat in the mouth. -REP]
____________________________________
It is a compliment. I really like goats.
“I have had plenty of direct experience of outright lying and falsification of data.”
i’d be just a bit worried about this admission!
[REPLY: Are there any mirrors in your house? You are one of the “typically hit and run anonymous cowards” that Anthony was referring to. One would suspect that you are less offended by the dishonesty than the exposure of it. -REP]
Scientists aren’t a different sort of people. They don’t have distinctive DNA, they don’t have a unique shape, they aren’t raised in isolation from humanity in special Science Ranches.
The subcultural conceit of superiority is crippling, like every other form of bigotry. Unfortunately it’s fairly universal – everybody thinks they’re better than everyone else. The Science community just seems particularly unaware of the fact that it’s a conceit (in large part, obviously not everyone is).
BillD says:
July 9, 2012 at 2:41 pm
My experience in basic research is pretty much the opposite of Gail’s….
_________________________________
I would agree that pure research, where there is no political motive driving it, is much less likely to run into the clash with the “God of Profit” However once the politicians like the UN saw CAGW as a means for extracting a world tax to fatten UN coffers and the World Bank saw the Carbon Trading Market as another financial instrument it was no longer pure research any more than the research on red wine and cancer was.
– A University of Connecticut researcher known for his work on the benefits of red wine to heart health falsified his data in more than 100 instances, and nearly a dozen scientific journals are being warned of the potential problems after publishing his studies in recent years….
The basic message should be there ARE dishonest people out there and they are making headlines. As Scientists we need to acknowledge that and make sure we clean up our act. Science journals insisting on archiving of data, methods and computer programs so research can be verified and validated will go a long way towards cleaning up the problem.
Mandatory courses in not only statistics but in the statistical traps like “flinching” or discarding “outliers” should be mandatory for undergraduate science degree completion.
On a final note, the doom and gloom inflammatory press releases by Universities should be STRICTLY avoided, especially when accompanied by weasel words.
Profit doesn’t just mean money. People profit from enhanced reputations, the respect and admiration of others, the feeling of accomplishment, etc.
Some people act like the motive is limited to the “icky other” known as “business.” Guess which one came first.
[SNIP: You are not funny. You are done. Get lost. -REP]
Well, Gail, as you should be well aware, there are two sides to every event, or ‘story’. I don’t know what your experience has been with ‘direct reports’ (the direct supervision of employees reporting to yourself), and maybe this is not news to you, but individual employees can vary widely (and wildly) in terms of capabilities, comprehension, compliance with company ‘policy’ as well as shop procedure … not every one of them has the same scruples nor conscience as say yourself or others even.
Another item that may not be news to you is that it is usually necessary to use some moderate amount of politics and yes, even salesmanship, in the performance of one’s job, especially when it come to ‘breaking’ bad news to one whom one reports to. “Hair on fire” style may work for posting in a forum to get attention for one’s favored causes or topics, but this can be a definite turn-off to management and ‘normal’ people in general; better to take a lower-profile with the company when addressing hot-button issues as when flagging possible out-of-conformance billable material (after all, you’re talking about profit-generating product, the life-blood of the company and not simply engaging in some abstract QA statistical drill!) and ‘sell’ yourself and position on what is wrong with the product you’ve flagged …
A couple years back, a customer we depended on for a goodly chunk of our business was complicating our ‘lives’ as a result of their designs and their supplied ATE test sets acting in collusion to produce ‘low yields’. The backlog of red-tagged material was collecting on shelves and represented a substantial billable amount of money … a long story made short, it required weekly meetings with said customer over which we would discuss reports I had compiled detailing shortcomings as to performance and certain ‘fails’ (which were parametric in nature, not complete malfunction or non-functioning product) that occurred in conjunction with the new ATE (Automated Test Equipment) they had ‘fielded’ for our use. Cutting to the chase, it took about two years to straighten out the design issues (as seen once that design is brought out of the lab and ‘kicked’ into the production environment) as well as the shortcomings of the ATE (test set) … and of course each new ‘spin’/generation of product carried with it ‘issues’ that would only be seen when the spread of component values seen with production quantities on the ‘production floor’ but by this time we had worked-up a good rapport with this customer so resolution was much easier and quicker; point being, in the real world in order to accomplish things bigger than oneself (e.g. a largish manufacturing operation) one has to work with people, not against them.
And again, every ‘story’ has two sides; alas, we will never know the complications of what the other side experienced when certain issues were brought to the fore in the positions one as yourself held in previous years …
.
Now let us look at the definition of a Quality Engineer : –
“The Certified Quality Engineer is a professional who understands the principles of product and service quality evaluation and control. This body of knowledge and applied technologies include, but are not limited to, development and operation of quality control systems, application and analysis of testing and inspection procedures, the ability to use metrology and statistical methods to diagnose and correct improper quality control practices, an understanding of human factors and motivation, facility with quality cost concepts and techniques, and the knowledge and ability to develop and administer management information systems and to audit quality systems for deficiency identification and correction.”
Skeptic’s list of “Fallacy Arguments”. link: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html
A true skeptic, will examine the data, source opinion from fully qualified sources, does not leap to wild conclusions based on cherry picked data and above all maintains a clear mind, whilst avoiding the evils of cognitive dissonance double think.
Cui Bono Nullius in verba
I’ve got the pitchforks, who has the torches? Lets go get them nasty, dishonest climate scientists!
The Eastern US should be hauled into World Court for theft of the ROW’s (Rest Of the World’s) heat. Brazen, I calls it!
I think scientists are no more dishonest than the average population, but certainly far better than business(men/women) or politicians. Significantly more number of business people and politicians go to jail for professional dishonest dealings than scientists. Looking at dishonest scientists, unless one can make a case that scientists who believe in global warming are more dishonest than the skeptics, such statements may not mean much. Leaders and followers can fall in both sides, and I see no evidence to claim that most followers and dishonest scientists are global warming believers, and most leaders and honest scientists are in the skeptics group. Also, few people may get dismissed for being honest, but I would assume a larger number are dismissed for not being honest – so those data won’t support one side or other.