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

a reply to: Outlier13

Have you confirmed that using the scientific method, or are you just on someone elses bandwagon?

I only ask, because it is incredibly common to see people decrying science without having the tools on board to do so from an informed position.

a reply to: Phage

'I'm better then you, I'm better than you!!', big egotistical assumption there not knowing the poster. Defending a money hungry politician like Al Gore?? That speaks volumes alone...
All bow to the mighty Phage!

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Outlier13

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.

No !!! I dont believe it !!!!

This...this...cant be. You're talking about scientists here...maaaan. Utter blasphemy.

Says a professor of marketing whose scientific credentials seem to be a BA from the 1950s.

I mean it's well known that all the big money jobs are in government research and that people producing work for the heartland institute are solely motivated by charitable impulse.

Paraphrasing what has been said many times before:
"But what if we develop renewable and reliable energy sources thereby lessening the planet's reliance on oil, stop releasing harmful chemicals into the air or rivers or ground or oceans, or reduce our likelihood of creating ecological disasters that are incredibly costly to even begin to undo the damage of, and do all these good things for no reason!??"

I don't give the slightest toss if climate change is over-exaggerated or a lie (besides the implications of corruption and badly-done science). Actually, I really bloody hope it's a big fat fake, because that way myself and my descendants (if I have the fortune to create any) don't have to deal with the consequences of greedy, near-sighted, sociopathic morons of generations past endlessly seeking just that extra cent of profit. That would be wonderful. I'd be overjoyed, in fact.

Unfortunately, maybe it's not a lie.
I'd rather hedge my bet.

a reply to: Outlier13

Most of the conflict of interest stuff comes from the private sector and medical drug trials.

There have been studies on this for a while.

Man made climate change is a reality. The earth is a living system. Human being have altered the earth incredibly. Which changes habitat and it's flora and fauna which change the habitat and on and on. On a physical level we are also changing mass to gas quite frequently.

a reply to: luthier

Man made climate change is a reality.

And my a** is a Chinese typewriter

Human being have altered the earth incredibly.

One misguided opinion (no facts)

On a physical level we are also changing mass to gas quite frequently.

I do , but mainly after eating burritos and refried beans

a reply to: Gothmog

He's actually right on all counts. What's not agreed upon is the level of impact humanity is having. My professional opinion at the present time is that human beings are capable of reversing the damage because earth is surprisingly resilient. The problem is I don't think humanity is capable of the level of global cooperation that would require. Don't worry, the planet will shake us off and after awhile you won't even be able to tell we were here.

All I know is that it's incredibly frustrating protecting even my small square of the planet from the rest of you.

originally posted by: Outlier13
Armstrong is a Wharton School professor

And Wharton School is a business school. I wonder what business does a businessman have to talk about climate change, or anything else regadring science.

originally posted by: Outlier13
He says that fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method.

He's a Professor of Marketing. And he needs to sit down with scientists and discuss research methods.

The "scientific method" is ONE way of doing science and it does NOT work for every single problem. For example, it's a useless model of doing research in the paleontology lab where you have a Mystery Bone that you've scribed out of a rock and you're trying to find out what this fragment is and if it's a new species or a known species of a different age range. It does NOT work with archaeology. It is NOT the appropriate method for psychology. You can't use it for ecology, behavior analysis, or any field that involves a semi-chaotic or chaotic system (like human beings or human culture.)

You can't use the scientific method to study ocean currents or volcanoes or the like.

The "scientific method" a great method for chemistry and some other disciplines where the thing you're investigating is not influenced by a billion random things. It's a PERFECT system to teach to kids because it can be broken down into seven very understandable steps.

It's the wrong method for investigating climate - here you need research methods that focus on investigating chaotic systems with feedback loops (so... hydrology and other similar fields.)

a reply to: Phage

Does that statistic apply only to papers that support AGW?

The answer is in the op...

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.

Has the good professor published anything?

Not relevant with regards to the claim.

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

Not relevant either. Debunk the claim that the scientific method is not being used, if you want to say something that is relevant.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Outlier13

Have you confirmed that using the scientific method, or are you just on someone elses bandwagon?

I only ask, because it is incredibly common to see people decrying science without having the tools on board to do so from an informed position.

It is even more common for people to support science from an uninformed position, jumping on bandwagons.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Outlier13

Have you confirmed that using the scientific method, or are you just on someone elses bandwagon?

I only ask, because it is incredibly common to see people decrying science without having the tools on board to do so from an informed position.

It is even more common for people to support science from an uninformed position, jumping on bandwagons.

Actually, in order for the scientific method" to be used for Climate Change research, you would need to:
* duplicate Earth (several times)
* duplicate the population of Earth (for each of these Earths)
* create a Control Earth of the same age and size with NO humans
* measure the effects of humans as you change the following:
-- number of humans on the planet
-- level of technology
-- percentage of forested areas
-- percentage of grasslands
-- city size

Sadly, with all the budget cuts, I don't foresee any universities or governments coming up with the cash to create multiple 5 billion year old planets with 7.5 billion humans living there (who all agree to the terms and conditions and have informed consent) that orbit 93 million miles from a Class G main sequence star.

That's what it would take to do the "Scientific Method" on climate change. Depending on how many variables you want to test and what the conditions are, you might need as many as 10,000 of these planets.

Now, if you DON'T use "The Scientific Method" (which is the wrong way of studying this) and instead use regressive data analysis and other techniques (which is the right way to do this) and prediction models for small scale and large scale, then you will get real and useful results... and you don't have to try and recreate those expensive 5 billion year old planets and find a suitable G-sequence star.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Outlier13
He says that fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method.

He's a Professor of Marketing. And he needs to sit down with scientists and discuss research methods.

The "scientific method" is ONE way of doing science and it does NOT work for every single problem. For example, it's a useless model of doing research in the paleontology lab where you have a Mystery Bone that you've scribed out of a rock and you're trying to find out what this fragment is and if it's a new species or a known species of a different age range. It does NOT work with archaeology. It is NOT the appropriate method for psychology. You can't use it for ecology, behavior analysis, or any field that involves a semi-chaotic or chaotic system (like human beings or human culture.)

You can't use the scientific method to study ocean currents or volcanoes or the like.

The "scientific method" a great method for chemistry and some other disciplines where the thing you're investigating is not influenced by a billion random things. It's a PERFECT system to teach to kids because it can be broken down into seven very understandable steps.

It's the wrong method for investigating climate - here you need research methods that focus on investigating chaotic systems with feedback loops (so... hydrology and other similar fields.)

Byrd - the first part of your post I tend to agree with. There must be multiple verifiable methods versus a single method. However, with respects to a scientist claiming a direct correlation to man and substantial impact on global climate change you are talking about a causation approach which can only be verified via the scientific method. They must prove causation. The purpose of my OP is it has been proven that the majority of "scientific claims" where causation is the premise there has been no verifiable or repeatable evidence to support those claims.

originally posted by: Outlier13

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.

You think Al Gore came up with climate change?

WH Memo 9/17/1969: "It is now pretty clearly agreed that the C02 content will rise 25% by 2000.”

Older still is this 1958 video about it - Al Gore was all of 10 years old when this aired:

a reply to: Greven
The memo got a few things right and a few things wrong.

Yes. Climate Change is a subject that can seize the imagination of persons normally indifferent to projects of apocalyptic change.

No. There was not a 25 percent increase in C02 by the year 2000, it was more like 14 percent. In the memo's defence, the paper referenced by the memo does indicate 14 percent was the low estimate for the year 2000, so they did get it right.

No. The temperature has not risen 7 degrees.

No. The Sea level has not risen 10 feet, there has been no change in the rate of increase at the tidal stations.

At least thats better than the apocalyptic predictions in the video that talk about sea level changes of 150 feet lmfao.




Here's the report "Restoring the Quality of the Environment' if you are interested. Well worth a read.
It's from 1965 and talks about C02.
link

Climate change is real.

The level of human contribution to it is the sticking point. AGW alarmists want you to believe we are a major contributor. They want you to think that part is "settled science". It's not. Every study, survey, or anything else you want to call it that has been done on scientific papers in this area has shown that how much humans contribute is still an open question. This includes the studies that AGW alarmists cite as evidence of the "90% (or 93, 97, 98, depending on what day of the week it is) of climate scientists agree" myth. The only way you can reach this number is by ignoring the vast majority of the papers and completely misrepresenting the others.

The majority of papers draw no conclusion as to the cause because there just isn't enough evidence to draw a conclusion. These papers are usually thrown out of the study, survey etc because they don't fit the narrative. Then they take the minority papers and state something like "90% of the papers that state an opinion as to the cause of global warming attribute humans as a significant contributor." This is an example of how you can make statistics say anything you want. They're not LYING. The key phrase is "papers that state an opinion" because they've thrown out the vast majority of papers that can't draw a conclusion because there's not enough evidence. This is deliberately misleading and fools many readers.

I will also note that AGW alarmists jump on the fact that some papers say humans are a "significant contributor" as proof that humans are a major driving force behind climate change. However, in a scientific frame of reference, "significant" basically just means non-zero. It doesn't mean it's a lot. 1% is significant, it means you can't ignore it in your calculations, but it doesn't mean it's the crux of the issue.

A small percentage of papers explicitly identify humans as the major contributing factor.

Here's an article explaining it in fairly simple terms I know that AGW worshipers will claim the source can't be trusted and that I'm lying or don't understand it, but if you read it with an open mind and actually read the studies for yourself, you'll see what they're saying makes perfect sense. It's a classic case of manipulating statistics to say what you want.

a reply to: face23785
To summarize:
No alarming sea level rise
No alarming temperature rise
No alarming sea temperature rise
No alarming hot spot in the troposphere
No alarming increase in hurricanes
No alarming increase in storms or storm intensity
No alarming increase in the satellite record

So what’s all the fuss about?

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785
To summarize:
No alarming sea level rise

wrong

oceanservice.noaa.gov...

No alarming temperature rise

wrong

climate.nasa.gov...

No alarming sea temperature rise

]wrong we are seeing a temperature rise over 5 times higher than the past.

www.epa.gov...

No alarming hot spot in the troposphere

Its not alarming but it has changed this has to do with lapse rate and would take a couple of pages to explain. but your wrong again its there.

No alarming increase in hurricanes

early prediction from flawed climate models.

No alarming increase in storms or storm intensity

again early prediction that appears to be wrong.

No alarming increase in the satellite record

Most definitely an increase especially in the troposphere .

Heres the raw data if you want to check it out found this interesting

ghrc.nsstc.nasa.gov...

So what’s all the fuss about?

Well ive seen studies that say mankind is somewhere between 25 and 30 percent of the co2 emissions. We know it does indeed effect climate were still learning to what extent. However if we know it makes changes shouldnt we try to limit the amount we produce and not hope and pray the earth can handle it?

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?

The video he posted probably can.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Outlier13

So, no examples.

It was a straw man argument?

Straw man attack: going after the messenger without apparently looking at the video and refuting the presentation. Since you haven't seen your rebuttal refuted (because there is nothing to refute) you must be correct.

This kind of sounds like a corollary to the OP: Lack of Scientific Method, Lack of Rational Debate.