[.cnI redruM]

Mann is a smarmy little creep. The Geophysical Science Community will continue to lose respect until they jettison him.

[weegee]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

[weegee]

Media Schadenfreude and Media Shenanigans PING

[Publius6961]

European investigators last week confirmed that a pioneering oral cancer researcher in Norway had fabricated much of his work. The news left experts in his field with a pressing question: What should they believe now? Suppose his findings, which precisely identified people at high risk of the deadly disease, were accurate even though data were faked?

Supposing pigs could fly?

This article simply reinfoprces my absolute belief that most scientists today are charlatans.
If you held a gun to my head and forced me to identify one cause, I would be forced to say the insinuation of the gay perverts where they don't belong.

[Sloth]

Bookmarked.

[kjam22]

If they are certain that the data is fake but accurate... then it should not be a big deal to get accurate data.

[AMHN]

"Mann is a smarmy little creep. The Geophysical Science Community will continue to lose respect until they jettison him."

That's when he'll show up on some Democrat Party ticket for congress or senate.

[azemt]

Its not just the Climate community that suffers from this. Real scientific efforts also lose credibility, and the temptation to create the "right" data to support your thesis seems to be everywhere.

Seems someone said something about the people who support "global warming" researchers being born every minute...

[Grampa Dave]

"The betrayal-of-science establishment has adopted the standards of Dan Rather and Reuters and should be equally trusted."

I gave up on Science the non scientific bs posing as a magazine of science in the 1990's.

Our grand daughter gave my wife a subscription to National Geographic last Christmas, because the gd likes to see pictures of bears and critters.

They were stacked in an unread pile, and this past weekend her father an engineer who hires, fires and manages engineers notice the pile. He asked why we hadn't read them. I told him to look a few of the magazines and scan them.

After about 20 minutes, he had scanned the ytd stack of NG mags. He said that they were so enviral whacko and non science related, he wouldn't allow them in his house anymore.

[fso301]

bump

[Milhous]

In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 [papers by Mann] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b [papers by McIntyre and McKitrick] to be valid and compelling.

An excerpt from McIntyre's and McKitrick's compelling criticisms:

Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance

This article identifies what is almost certainly a computer programming error in the principal components method used in MBH98. The error causes their PC method to nearly always identify hockey stick shaped series as the “dominant pattern” in a data set (the so-called “first Principal Component” or PC1), even when the data are just random numbers. We carried out 10,000 simulations in which we fed “red noise”, a form of trendless random numbers, into the MBH98 algorithm and, in over 99% of the cases, it produced hockey stick shaped PC1 series. The figure below shows 3 simulated PC1s and the MBH98 reconstruction: can you pick out the reconstruction?

Figure 1. Three simulated PC1s and the MBH98 reconstruction.

[SunkenCiv]

Suppose his findings, which precisely identified people at high risk of the deadly disease, were accurate even though data were faked?

Heh heh... Hey, I've got one... the mortality rate is still 100 per cent. [rimshot!]

[muir_redwoods]

"European investigators last week confirmed that a pioneering oral cancer researcher in Norway had fabricated much of his work. The news left experts in his field with a pressing question: What should they believe now? Suppose his findings, which precisely identified people at high risk of the deadly disease, were accurate even though data were faked?"

I believe that that phrasing constitutes a question, not a finding. Weak premise.

I do think human-caused global warming is nonsense but it's a poor move to base an article on a weak premise

[InterceptPoint]

I noted this sad trend in Scientific American several years ago. I gave up reading that formerly terrific magazine immediately and have not gone back. Sorry to see the same PC disease affect Science.