Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Skip to the 6:49 hour mark to listen to Prof. Armstrong

The 12th International Conference on Climate Change, took place on Thursday and Friday, March 23–24 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC, and featured the courageous men and women who spoke the truth about climate change during the height of the global warming scare.

One man in particular, Prof. J. Scott Armstrong talks about the unreliability of almost all scientific studies, especially in the global warming field. He says that fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method. He says that scientists are influenced by the large government funding grants, so that they will manipulate the results to get the results that the grantors desire. Armstrong is a Wharton School professor and forecasting expert. Professor Armstrong co-founded the peer-reviewed Journal of Forecasting in 1982 and the International Journal of Forecasting in 1985.

Prof. Armstrong speaks from 6:49 to 7:14.

My comments: "Man made" climate change exposed for the hoax / joke that it has always been.

I read that stuff all the time, mostly medical stuff. Half of the stuff is crap, one article says exactly opposite of what another says. You need to look at the parameters, a lot of the parameters are set to make something say what they want it to say. I would guess that a lot of global warming evidence is BS too.

The thing is we need to take care of our planet, why do they fabricate evidence to try to explain this, just tell it like it is. The evidence is twisted by politics, by people who benefit and fund the research too.

We have to use rationality, we have to take care not to destroy the ecosystem and we can work together if we squash the greed and ignorance of the ecosystem because it interferes with our desire to do what ever we want to do. The whole global warming was just a scam to boost the economy and shuffle money to people who would be running this program. They were designing a scam. Lets just stop destroying the environment and wasting resources, building things to last.

a reply to: Outlier13

I haven't watched your video yet, but in response to the title of your OP:

My best friend who is a physicist for NIST has been warning me for years to watch the gradual decay of accountability, peer review, and the scientific method from the scientific establishment's modus operandi.

Not surprised in the least bit. The one thing these globalist manipulators do not realize is that real science can not be subverted forever. Eventually the data will be collected, even if destroyed, it will be collected and analyzed again by some other team of scientists on the other side of the world.

You can't erase facts. Truth will prevail.

a reply to: Outlier13

Does that statistic apply only to papers that support AGW?

Has the good professor published anything?

You know the Heartland Institute is not exactly an unbiased organization, right?

a reply to: rickymouse

The point is the man-made climate change camp touts "scientific evidence" as the tip of their spear to scuttle any arguments opposing their agenda. By their very use of the word "scientific" it would mean the climate change "scientists" would by definition apply the scientific method. They do not and have not and therefore their findings are completely made up BS.

a reply to: Phage

What are your thoughts on the National Institute of Standards & Technology?

How does Phage view NIST's credibility?

a reply to: Outlier13

The point is the man-made climate change camp touts "scientific evidence" as the tip of their spear to scuttle any arguments opposing their agenda.

Can you provide examples?

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Outlier13

I haven't watched your video yet, but in response to the title of your OP:

My best friend who is a physicist for NIST has been warning me for years to watch the gradual decay of accountability, peer review, and the scientific method from the scientific establishment's modus operandi.

Not surprised in the least bit. The one thing these globalist manipulators do not realize is that real science can not be subverted forever. Eventually the data will be collected, even if destroyed, it will be collected and analyzed again by some other team of scientists on the other side of the world.

You can't erase facts. Truth will prevail.

Wow. That disturbs me. Have you had any deeper conversations with him on why? Has the scientific community become so rife with political agendas they are willing to sell out the very profession dependent upon provable results?

a reply to: ColdWisdom
That's a pretty general question. Can you be more specific?

You wouldn't be presenting a leading question, would you?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

The point is the man-made climate change camp touts "scientific evidence" as the tip of their spear to scuttle any arguments opposing their agenda.

Can you provide examples?

Ask Al Gore. He can give you tons of "scientific evidence".

a reply to: Outlier13

Ask Al Gore.

I asked you. It was your statement.
Al Gore isn't here. As far as I know.

originally posted by: Phage

Al Gore isn't here. As far as I know.

Of course he's here. He invented the internet dont'cha know. He invented man-made climate change too...

a reply to: The GUT

False.
On both counts.

a reply to: Phage

Okay, he only lied about inventing the internet and he's just a shill for the scientifically bankrupt man-made climate change scam. Is that better?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: The GUT

False.
On both counts.

You're either trolling or genuinely know nothing about the global warming agenda and especially Al Gore.

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: Phage

Okay, he only lied about inventing the internet and he's just a shill for the scientifically bankrupt man-made climate change scam. Is that better?

Gore is worse than a shill. He's the guy that starts a windshield repair business and walks around parking lots cracking people's windshields while leaving his business card under their wiper blade.

a reply to: The GUT

He didn't say that he invented the internet.

As far as being a shill, I don't know. But climate science is not scientifically bankrupt. By a long shot.

a reply to: Outlier13

I know more about Gore than you do and I know more about climate science than you do.

Can you provide those examples I asked for?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

I know more about Gore than you do and I know more about climate science than you do.

Can you provide those examples I asked for?

Hey man. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

a reply to: Outlier13

So, no examples.

It was a straw man argument?