It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
James Hansen, Nasa`s preeminent Climate Change Alarmist, used to think we were heading for an ice age:
These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."
Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets. "People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual," Dr. Ioannidis said.
Every new fact discovered through experiment represents a foothold in the unknown.
In a wilderness of knowledge, it can be difficult to distinguish error from fraud, sloppiness from deception, eagerness from greed or, increasingly, scientific conviction from partisan passion.
As scientific findings become fodder for political policy wars over matters from stem-cell research to global warming, even trivial errors and corrections can have larger consequences.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I thought I would add this, here, because after years of reading scientists theories I find it to be true.
Most Science Studies
Appear to Be Tainted
By Sloppy Analysis
online.wsj.com...
Guess we should use a crystal ball instead...
NASA's James Hansen, whose work is continually exposed as shoddy while he refuses to share data gathering techniques and computer codes used for such things with others, has been criticized by a contributing scientist to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as moving "dangerously away from scientific discourse to advocacy."
Certain positive feedback effects, as well as recent data on the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, were not included in the IPCC's report. "Because of the cumbersome IPCC review process, they exclude recent information," Prof. Hansen says, "so they are very handicapped."
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I feel your passion and pain
Was that a question?
Poision the well?
Was that what I was doing?
Who gets the grant money and why, and do they, or do they not, fight for it?
And can then, or can they not, be politically motivated?
I would imagine there are SOME, unscrupulus scientists as well.
Originally posted by hinky
Hansen has a track record like many of his contemporaries. He did pronounce that global cooling was coming along with many others. Even the CIA produced a report back in 1975/76 about the political challenges ahead with this coming ice age.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Now you have me curious Mel,
IPCC Member: NASA’s Hansen Moving 'Dangerously Away From Scientific Discourse to Advocacy'
newsbusters.org...
Bear in mind that the IPCC's most recent report downgraded its expectations for such sea level increases to less than two feet.
Of course, lost upon Hansen - and, quite frankly, the entire global warming alarmism crowd - is that if oceans were indeed so much higher three million years ago before man was emitting so much carbon dioxide, it seems quite specious to suggest that man is responsible for today's warming and sea level rise.
The second quote shows that the IPCC doesn't include all the most up to date research.
Science is a non-stop process.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Yes, I have noticed, this is what makes me crazy, the layperson gets this scientific news, but we don't get much of a follow up on the progress of the theories, so we are left to guess and wonder, i.e. crystal ball,
I love to follow the latest on science, and mostly we just get bits and pieces.
I am not just talking GW here, I mean the whole of science,
Do you see it as sort of cliqueish?
Well, yes that goes without saying.
Just because he was wrong once doesn't mean he's always wrong about everything. That's the thing with scientists: when new data comes to light that refine or even completely change their theories, hypotheses and beliefs.
This is the scientific way. Present hypotheses, test them against the evidence. Those which conform to the evidence win the day. Others lose. But there is no shame, we need this competition of ideas.
Skepticism thus plays an essential role in scientific research, and, far from trying to silence skeptics, science invites their contributions. So too, the global warming debate benefits from traditional scientific skepticism.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
What if the emission and humans effect on the earths climate are keeping us from the ice age?
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
What I see is people getting so radical, if you dare to question.
And healthy skeptism is all part of the procedure.
But dishonesty and misrepresentation are a common trait found in one group of individuals.