By Paul Driessen – Re-Blogged From WUWT
Recent actions show reform is in the wind, but much remains to be done, especially on climate
Dr. Brian Wansink recently resigned from his position as Columbia University professor, eating behavior researcher and director of the Cornell “food lab.” A faculty investigation found that he had misreported research data, failed to preserve data and results properly, and employed dubious statistical techniques.
Re-Blogged From CFACT
Global warming alarmists suffered a big hit this week in their effort to deify shoddy “peer-reviewed” climate papers. Stanford University medical professor John Ioannidis, in an interview with Agence France Presse (AFP), blew the lid off the trustworthiness of the peer-review process.
When the alarmist community seeks to push a new argument or messaging strategy in the global warming debate, they first have one of their pseudo-scientists write an article for publication in a compromised peer-reviewed journal. The political left has infiltrated and taken over most science journals that address political hot topics, much as they have taken over most of the “mainstream” news media. This is especially the case regarding global warming issues. As the leaked Climategate emails revealed, editors of science journals typically are prominent alarmists or deliberately coordinate with prominent alarmists in the selection of articles and messaging (see https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review). The “peer-review process” typically involves the editor sending a submitted article to a team of reviewers who are outspoken climate activists. After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible. Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labeled science deniers.
By Peter D. Tillman – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
Got your attention, didn’t it? But they are actually the good guys — two working scientists who, behind the scenes, have had striking success in bringing on retractions by publicly calling out questionable data. Their work was written up in Science Magazine in a freely-available article, here.
Once a problematic paper has been identified, it’s seldom straightforward getting it fixed. Nick Brown and James Heathers have had unusual numbers of successes, perhaps because they start out low-key, but don’t hesitate to go public if they get no response. Other would-be whistle-blowers have had less success, as the Science article describes in some detail. One whistle-blower’s efforts attracted legal threats — another scenario WUWT readers will recall, with a few progressing to actual lawsuits. The litigious Dr. Michael Mann comes to mind.
By Mike Lorrey – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
NOTE: The author is an advisor to trive.news. He has also made a number of contributions to WUWT over the years including moderating during the Climategate era.
We have seen over the past decade plus of the climate wars how the alarmist establishment has exploited its advantage in the halls of power and wealthy influence peddlers in Silicon Valley and the Left Coast to seek to do its best to propagandize, promote, filter, dissimilate, dissemble and to downgrade the search rankings those fighting for truth in science like us at WUWT, JoNova, ClimateAudit, etc.
By Eric Worrall – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
According to Futurism author Lou Del Bello, demanding the data used in climate studies is evil because it leaves climate scientists open to having their work challenged.
By Daniel Lakens – Re-Blogged FromThe 20% Statistician
A blog on statistics, methods, and open science. Understanding 20% of statistics will improve 80% of your inferences.
By Anthony Watts – Re-Blogged From http://www.WattsUpWithThat.com
‘Fraudulent research makes it past gatekeepers at even the most prestigious journals’
London 31 October: A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals the extent to which current policy-making is reliant on untrustworthy peer-reviewed research, much of which cannot be replicated and “may be simply untrue”.
click on the image above to watch a short video about the GWPF report
