Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Mister Moose]

Is Most Published Research Wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Butter. Margarine. Butter. Margarine. Butter. Margarine. Butter. Margarine.

[Bubba]

Whenever I see a story on the news that begins "A new study says...", my BS alarm rings.

[rogman]

If there is anyone still following this post that is still interested in considering that "peer-reviewed science" is not as reliable as is advertised...here is an excellent video explaining why MOST (yes most) published science which relies on statistical analysis is probably wrong.

Is Most Published Research Wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not some hillbilly creationist referring to biblical authority or some hippy attacking the evils of capitalist science...this is a clear and sane SCIENTIFIC argument about why MOST published research is NOT replicable. With lots of data used to illustrate the underlying principles.

Some of you already know this, for some it may be a little surprising....some will pretend it cannot be true and/or should be ignored.

sane people have know how much of science is likely wrong for quite q while now....still the best ideas for explaining the world made by the smartest people in the world but unfortunately still...OFTEN WRONG.

Sorry.

Making a bit of a leap there aren't you, Sparky? You start with the premise that what may appear to be statistically significant is in fact not. I have no problem with that. Then you assert that "MOST" published research is not replicable. Sorry, but I'm going to need a citation for that. Someone (you?) pulled that one out of their ass, didn't they? However, I'll agree that being able to replicate a paper's findings is fundamental to its long term acceptance. It's kind of the cornerstone, actually. However, as you say, plenty of work (including peer reviewed) isn't replicable, e.g. cold fusion, and vaccines causing autism. That doesn't prove that that process doesn't work, in fact it proves just the opposite. It is patently obvious you have no understanding of the purpose of peer review. It isn't to stand as a gate keeper to what is correct and what is wrong (although obviously some significant fact checking occurs because the "peers" are generally well versed on the subject), but rather to make sure the paper is such that its conclusions and processes could be replicated.

sane people have know how much of science is likely wrong for quite q while now.

Kind of ran off the rails with that one, doncha think? Channeling the drunk uncle at Thanksgiving?

To be fair, didn't watch the whole, thing, just enough to confirm it was about P values, and roll my eyes... This isn't new or earth shattering. Sorry.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

If there is anyone still following this post that is still interested in considering that "peer-reviewed science" is not as reliable as is advertised...here is an excellent video explaining why MOST (yes most) published science which relies on statistical analysis is probably wrong.

Is Most Published Research Wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not some hillbilly creationist referring to biblical authority or some hippy attacking the evils of capitalist science...this is a clear and sane SCIENTIFIC argument about why MOST published research is NOT replicable. With lots of data used to illustrate the underlying principles.

Some of you already know this, for some it may be a little surprising....some will pretend it cannot be true and/or should be ignored.

sane people have know how much of science is likely wrong for quite q while now....still the best ideas for explaining the world made by the smartest people in the world but unfortunately still...OFTEN WRONG.

Sorry.

Making a bit of a leap there aren't you, Sparky? You start with the premise that what may appear to be statistically significant is in fact not. I have no problem with that. Then you assert that "MOST" published research is not replicable. Sorry, but I'm going to need a citation for that. Someone (you?) pulled that one out of their ass, didn't they? However, I'll agree that being able to replicate a paper's findings is fundamental to its long term acceptance. It's kind of the cornerstone, actually. However, as you say, plenty of work (including peer reviewed) isn't replicable, e.g. cold fusion, and vaccines causing autism. That doesn't prove that that process doesn't work, in fact it proves just the opposite. It is patently obvious you have no understanding of the purpose of peer review. It isn't to stand as a gate keeper to what is correct and what is wrong (although obviously some significant fact checking occurs because the "peers" are generally well versed on the subject), but rather to make sure the paper is such that its conclusions and processes could be replicated.

sane people have know how much of science is likely wrong for quite q while now.

Kind of ran off the rails with that one, doncha think? Channeling the drunk uncle at Thanksgiving?

To be fair, didn't watch the whole, thing, just enough to confirm it was about P values, and roll my eyes... This isn't new or earth shattering. Sorry.

You really didn't understand the logic....didn't consider the data....the Ioannidis paper in PLOS has had a huge impact on sane scientists...it gives detail to the BASIC argument presented in the video. Are you dumb or just lazy? Lazy is OK if you don't post your ignorance.

Most research papers for which replication has been attempted have BEEN SHOWN to NOT be replicable. And for most research replication is not even attempted.

You do understand what that means don't you?

It means that A LOT of published science these days is probably actually wrong.

Actually wrong.

You think science is a religion so this concept offends you.

I think that science is an activity performed by HUMAN BEINGS. As such it is prone to error. Turns out there is probably a lot more error embedded in grant-driven science than we wish.

Again sorry if this offends you but it helps explain why there was a 40 year consensus on saturated fats that appears to have been WRONG. Science is the best way to make accurate maps of the world but it is (especially currently) prone to a fair amount of mistaken conclusions.

[Cityskier]

ignorant, uneducated,racist, misogynist, bigotted, religious thinking and anyone who supports _____________________ is an ignorant, uneducated,racist, misogynist, bigotted, religious, bully....( add a in few more "ists" for add'l bonus points and pseudo-creativity factor)

For as long as you resemble the remarks they will be used against you. I think you got them all.

[madhatter]

ignorant, uneducated,racist, misogynist, bigotted, religious thinking and anyone who supports _____________________ is an ignorant, uneducated,racist, misogynist, bigotted, religious, bully....( add a in few more "ists" for add'l bonus points and pseudo-creativity factor)

For as long as you resemble the remarks they will be used against you. I think you got them all.

case in point, w/o strawman, ad hominem attacks the left has NOTHING...except perhaps projection...

[rogman]

There was a paper on this subject about 10 years ago with respect to the use of statistics in medical studies. This isn't new; and in light of the intervening years, your apocalyptic vision with respect to all of science seems a tad off the mark.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

There was a paper on this subject about 10 years ago with respect to the use of statistics in medical studies. This isn't new; and in light of the intervening years, your apocalyptic vision with respect to all of science seems a tad off the mark.

I made no "apocalyptic" pronouncements. The Ioannidis paper simply laid out very SCIENTIFIC and LOGICAL reasons which why MOST scientific research that uses complex data sets (that would include most research in most scientific fields) is likely to be WRONG. I suppose you didn't read the paper when it came out, I did, nor have you to this day had the COURAGE to consider its import.

The Ioannidis paper does what REAL SCIENTISTS do: construct a testable theory which generates predictions. He made predictions about current research which are SUPPORTED by the data presented in the video.

The video basically follows the theme of the Ioannidis paper and EXPLAINS, in clear terms with many concrete examples, how in FACT it turns out that when we look for capacity to REPLICATE current research...the data is AWFUL, as predicted in the paper.

Did you miss that? (You admit you didn't watch the video)

They claim that efforts to REPLICATE "landmark cancer studies" only succeeded in 6 out of 53 cases!

6 out of 53!

in "landmark" cases.

All I am saying is...just because a published study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. Actual evidence says that assuming the conclusions of a study are robust and reproducible is not merited.

So just slow down when you assume that claims that: a "consensus" exists & "the science is settled"... the best data shows that you are likely to be making an ass of yourself.

This is not me saying (despite your insistence that it is) that the recent results which undermine the replicability of most research means that therefore ALL science is wrong!

It means that we should withhold our certainty to those instances where conclusions have clear merit with no informed dissent. Like most of the corpus of evolutionary theory (and even that without TOTAL certainty)

Your likely response might be that some problems, like a cancer diagnosis, demand immediate response even in the absence of certainty. In many instances I would agree. We often must respond even in the face of a lack to compelling certainty.

BUT...if the doctors recommendation for treatment were wildly traumatic, like cutting off both your legs, you would have every right to hesitate in accepting the treatment.

If the recommended treatment seemed illogical and other doctors (even 3 out of 100) claimed the treatment was dangerous and useless you would be sensible to ask the recommending doctors to answer those claims. If they were unable or refused or to answer the questions...well... would you still submit to a traumatic treatment?

I do not think that the "climate dilemma" demands we accept the "consensus" solution.

We are actually VERY uncertain of the "diagnosis" of cause in the earth's climate system. The recommended response seems both useless (the USA cutting hydrocarbon use is likely to have almost NO impact on climate) and indeed harmful if not traumatic.

It (sharply cutting hydrocarbon fuel use) will delay the progress of humanity towards a future of greater wealth. . Wealthy cultures are better stewards of their environment and more likely to produce the innovations which will bring us towards a technology where we phase out combustion of hydrocarbons.

So like many of the sane posters on this thread (Bubba, Moose, etc) I support investment incentives into research into alternative energy pathways...but... I personally do not accept CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) as a well supported theory and reject I many of the draconian measures currently proposed to solve this non-existent problem.

I suspect most climate bed-wetters are really motivated by a rejection of capitalism and modernity. Destroying modern society to help them sleep better seems like the wrong solution. Maybe we could hire nannies for them? Might be cheaper.

Certainly a Venn diagram of anti-capitalists and climate alarmists would have a massive overlap.

The amazing world we live in is almost entirely contingent on the historical and ongoing use of hydrocarbon fuels as an energy source. Those who choose to ignore this and are attempting to end this benefit endanger us all (especially those in cultures which do not yet have access to the miracle of electricity in their homes.) I hope their plans are thwarted.

[rogman]

You started with a reasonable premise (which, if you look back, I agreed with), but OMFG did you run off the rails with it.

I suspect most climate bed-wetters are really motivated by a rejection of capitalism and modernity. Destroying modern society to help them sleep better seems like the wrong solution. Maybe we could hire nannies for them? Might be cheaper.

Certainly a Venn diagram of anti-capitalists and climate alarmists would have a massive overlap.

Wow. You are one bat sh*t nuts conspiracy whacko.
And, for the record, capitalism has served me well, thank-you.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

You started with a reasonable premise (which, if you look back, I agreed with), but OMFG did you run off the rails with it.

I suspect most climate bed-wetters are really motivated by a rejection of capitalism and modernity. Destroying modern society to help them sleep better seems like the wrong solution. Maybe we could hire nannies for them? Might be cheaper.

Certainly a Venn diagram of anti-capitalists and climate alarmists would have a massive overlap.

Wow. You are one bat sh*t nuts conspiracy whacko.
And, for the record, capitalism has served me well, thank-you.

That wasn't aimed at you particularly. I think that what I wrote is actually very true. To YOUR credit you are not part of the, I suspect, majority of climate alarmists who are quite happy to use their "science" to deconstruct modern capitalist society.

So cheers to you for your sanity on that account. And cheers to modern capitalist societies and the hydrocarbon fuel use which helped generate our vast wealth.

[GSKI]

Notice how there are many massive repaving operations going on this summer. All around NH and Mass they are repaving dozens of miles of pavement. Wonder what that is? OIL IS RELATIVELY CHEAP. Only cognitive dissonance allows you to desire that oil is eliminated from OUR PRESENT NEEDS. There is simply no escaping how important oil is to our way of life. It may go away someday but the technology to make that happen is simply not there no matter how much hard core environmentalists and Democrats may want to force it today.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Notice how there are many massive repaving operations going on this summer. All around NH and Mass they are repaving dozens of miles of pavement. Wonder what that is? OIL IS RELATIVELY CHEAP. Only cognitive dissonance allows you to desire that oil is eliminated from OUR PRESENT NEEDS. There is simply no escaping how important oil is to our way of life. It may go away someday but the technology to make that happen is simply not there no matter how much hard core environmentalists and Democrats may want to force it today.

Yeah great point. Somehow a lot of "modern" humans have bought into the whole "I'm cool...I hate oil" script. Yes of course there are downsides to our use of hydrocarbons, but those folks that are all about "keep that crap in the ground"....are either not very well informed or not very bright.

An again as you point out this is all about our PRESENT reality...eventually we will develop very different technologies which will replace our dependence on hydrocarbons.

[Mister Moose]

An again as you point out this is all about our PRESENT reality...eventually we will develop very different technologies which will augment our dependence on hydrocarbons.

Fixed it for you. I have an idea that asphalt, fiberglass, virgin plastic, nylon carpet, solvents, perfume and a whole host of stuff (like skis, ski boots, chairlift seat pads, ski jackets, ski helmets, bogey wheel rubber, HSQ tires, snowmobile tracks, Ski Patrol ropes, gondola cabins, plastic beer cups, trail signs, pole baskets, season passes, synthetic underwear, ski wax, ...) isn't going away anytime soon. Not to mention energy production and internal combustion engines for everything from farm tractors to lobster boats.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

An again as you point out this is all about our PRESENT reality...eventually we will develop very different technologies which will augment our dependence on hydrocarbons.

Fixed it for you. I have an idea that asphalt, fiberglass, virgin plastic, nylon carpet, solvents, perfume and a whole host of stuff isn't going away anytime soon. Not to mention energy production and internal combustion engines for everything from farm tractors to lobster boats.

Yeah good fix. I was just daydreaming into the distant future...and any sane human knows that simply produces nonsense. So ...yes good call.

[Woodsrider]

Hemp plastic is sustainsble and good for Vermont.
It would make a cool pair of skis too.