It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
ne morning last summer, a German psychologist named Mathias Kauff woke up to find that he had been reprimanded by a robot. In an email, a computer program named Statcheck informed him that a 2013 paper he had published on multiculturalism and prejudice appeared to contain a number of incorrect calculations – which the program had catalogued and then posted on the internet for anyone to see. The problems turned out to be minor – just a few rounding errors – but the experience left Kauff feeling rattled. “At first I was a bit frightened,” he said. “I felt a bit exposed.”
If Fanelli’s estimate is correct, it seems likely that thousands of scientists are getting away with misconduct each year. Fraud – including outright fabrication, plagiarism and self-plagiarism – accounts for the majority of retracted scientific articles. But, according to RetractionWatch, which catalogues papers that have been withdrawn from the scientific literature, only 684 were retracted in 2015, while more than 800,000 new papers were published. If even just a few of the suggested 2% of scientific fraudsters – which, relying on self-reporting, is itself probably a conservative estimate – are active in any given year, the vast majority are going totally undetected. “Reviewers and editors, other gatekeepers – they’re not looking for potential problems,” Hartgerink said.
When it comes to fraud – or in the more neutral terms he prefers, “scientific misconduct” – Hartgerink is aware that he is venturing into sensitive territory. “It is not something people enjoy talking about,” he told me, with a weary grin. Despite its professed commitment to self-correction, science is a discipline that relies mainly on a culture of mutual trust and good faith to stay clean. Talking about its faults can feel like a kind of heresy. In 1981, when a young Al Gore led a congressional inquiry into a spate of recent cases of scientific fraud in biomedicine, the historian Daniel Kevles observed that “for Gore and for many others, fraud in the biomedical sciences was akin to pederasty among priests”.
originally posted by: Greven
I disagree with your premise; I don't think he actually cares that much about being lied to given his apparent following of Alex Jones.
Donald Trump and the “Amazing” Alex Jones
Not to mention the frequency of his own fabrications...
The problems turned out to be minor – just a few rounding errors – but the experience left Kauff feeling rattled
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
My Master's thesis was a grueling endeavor. Never mind the fact that I had to type it (on a typewriter, didn't own a computer at the time) but I had to illustrate, source, reference, validate, verify every aspect of my research.
It stood up to my PhD's scrutiny, the board who oversaw it and finally approve it, as well as being verified at a conference and a paper presentation at Perdue as well as a final publication in a respected journal.
It was as sure as the sun setting in the west and rising in the east. Irrefutable.
To this day, it still gets referenced, especially when dealing with Sykes-Moore Chambers. . . but I digress.
Science seems now to be as substantial as a blog post or (dare I say. . . ) as substantial as a post on an internet board. It doesn't appear to have the validity, it doesn't measure up to the scrutiny as it once did.
But then again, as a scientist, specializing in engineering, what would I know.
Still, this is just my opinion.
Temperature data, or climate data in general, are no different in that regard. Whenever i see statements like, " year x has been the hottest ever" or claims that "XYZ" has been caught faking the data, i'm reminded that some basic knowledge and context are still much-needed.
Judging from the lack of responses, i realize now that it was probably overkill, but minus some fillers and trivial facts most of the information presented here should be the basics required when discussing surface temperatures.
In summary, the post was meant to be an overview of the data-sets, how they are created, what they represent and what some of the potential issues are.
I'm convinced most people would be much less concerned about climate change, or climate science, if the research and data behind it would be better understood.