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.

 

Global Warming Much Much worse than predicted.

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:21 AM
link   



edit on 22-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 


And what happened in 1998 to cause such a change? La Nina?


But you said that the cause of the “sky hum” can lie within Earth’s core as well, what does it mean?There is one more possible cause of these sounds and it may lie at the Earth’s core. The fact is that the acceleration of the drift of the Earth’s north magnetic pole which increased more than fivefold between 1998 and 2003 and is at the same level today points to intensification of energy processes in the Earth’s core, since it is processes in the inner and outer core that form the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Meanwhile, as we have already reported, on November 15, 2011 all ATROPATENA geophysical stations which record three-dimensional variations of the Earth’s gravitational field almost simultaneously registered a powerful gravitational impulse. The stations are deployed in Istanbul, Kiev, Baku, Islamabad and Yogyakarta, with the first and last one being separated by a distance of about 10,000 km. Such a phenomenon is only possible if the source of this emanation is at the Earth’s core level. That huge energy release from the Earth’s core at the end of the last year was some kind of a start signal indicating the transition of the Earth’s internal energy into a new active phase. www.kipnews.org...



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


El Nino... 1998 was an extremely warm year because of it.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I have started a new thread on Global Warming, that addresses another issue.

The 5 stages of climate denial are on display ahead of the IPCC report.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some of you might be interested in this one.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 



The changes have effected me and those I love.


Anyone who has children and grandchildren should recognize this.

The way I see it, they keep saying nothing big is going to happen for a hundred years, because that is so far in the future, no one seriously worries about it, but when I look at the data, I see serious changes in the next couple of decades.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I completely agree, the carbon credit concept is one big scam.

And it is also great propaganda to turn people off of the idea of dealing with global warming.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


yep. that's what it seems like to me too. i don't see us doing much to slow this down since the media doesn't talk about it anymore. the more ice that melts the faster the temps will rise. i've read enough to know they are downplaying things for multiple reasons. i'm guessing that in 10 years it will be too obvious to overlook anymore.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by pasiphae
 


Too bad current generations will only see the beginning of the impact. They should face the consequences of their greed.

I think there is a selfish ingredient to the denial of what is clearly obvious at this point.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b

The facts are that we have seen some climate anomalies occurring over the last few decades, one large example being the loss of Arctic ice. I have absolutely no problem with gathering data and investigating to find out why this is occurring and, if it turns out there is a problem that needs attention, doing what we reasonably can to alleviate any problems we may face in the future. That, however, is not what is occurring.

When the answer to every anomaly is tied back to carbon dioxide, that sets off a red flag for me. The ocean acidification is obviously, if one examines the data openly, related to sulfuric content in the atmosphere local to the areas showing the greatest concentration of acidification. That sulfur is coming from ocean-going vessels which are allowed to use massive sulfur concentrations in their fuel, due to a lack of International standards of fuel. I firmly and completely support the regulation of fuel used in International waters.

The Arctic ice sheet is obviously thinning related to an influx of warmer water through the Bering Strait. We need to find out why this water is warmer than normal; that heat is coming from somewhere.

Those are two items that beg to be addressed, but they cannot be addressed as long as the carbon dioxide boogey-man is lurking around. There are other sources of heat than carbon dioxide and ALL of those sources need to be suspect until ruled out. To attempt to tie every anomaly to the cause du'jour is... well, here's a good analogy:

A while back, my stepfather's four-wheeler quit running. It would fire up, then slowly die. He (well, actually my mother) asked me to take a look at it. I checked and it seemed to be getting fuel. There was no spluttering or coughing that is usually associated with a fuel issue. I decided to check the fire. I pulled off the spark plug wire and used a screwdriver to check for the spark against the engine block; it was sparking, but not very well. So I decided to check the spark at the magneto to see if it was putting out enough energy. As soon as I mentioned the firing was weak, my stepfather decided I was wasting everyone's time because "he knew it was a fuel problem." I wound up never checking the magneto, because he adamantly refused to let me. I just packed up my tools and went home, and he put the thing in the shop.

He got it back two weeks later, with a bill for a couple hundred dollars, itemized where the fuel system had been checked out at his request with no problems found, and a new magneto. The magneto was about $20 and would have taken me a couple hours to put on at most. He wound up losing a lot of money and a lot of time because he already "knew" the problem and by damn, no one was going to tell him any different.

That was no hide off my back. I hated to see him get taken for the money and i hated that he had to do without his four-wheeler for a while, but it was his fault and his consequences. But when a global climate discussion is in the works, that IS hide off my back. I need this planet working too, and I get worried when someone with only concern for how much green paper they can hoard starts deciding they "know" where the problem is. Just doing something is not the answer; the Hippocratic Oath says simply "do not harm" and is applicable here. The wrong policy could take an imagined problem and make it all too real, or an attempt to solve the wrong problem could lead to a true disaster.

In these debates, I am arguing for the health of the planet just as you believe you are. The difference is that I have studied the dynamics surrounding the Global Warming Theory and found it to be lacking. I am therefore searching for another answer to the anomalies we are seeing. Maybe they're indicative of a major issue, or maybe they're not. No one will ever truly know until real scientists without an agenda are allowed to present theories that may not align with the political agendas behind the money.

The danger is not from carbon dioxide. The danger is from politicians pretending to be scientists and metaphorically trying to fix a Rolex with a sledgehammer and a chainsaw.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 




Australia yes. Globally no.


Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that the "El Nino Southern Oscillation" (ENSO), which is measured by the "Southern Oscillation Index" (SOI), which in turn is defined as the "Mean Sea Level Pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin", is somehow different for Australia than it is for, say Brazil or Russia? Is that right?

Well, I have news for you, Tahiti and Darwin are where they are, and "Sea Level Pressure" in Tahiti and Darwin don't change according to where you live.

SOI definition and calculation here.

That link also has a graph showing the La Nina conditions for more than 75% of the last 6 years:



And yes, there is a so-called 'Atlantic Nino', formally called the "Atlantic Equatorial Mode", which is little known to casual observers. The reason for that is that, compared to ENSO, it has very little affect on GLOBAL climate. It certainly affects African climate, but because the equatorial Pacific is so much larger than the Atlantic (or the Indian), ENSO has a huge global impact.

By international agreement, the Australian BOM is the 'authoritative' data collector for both the SOI and the "Indian Ocean Dipole" (IOD) because they have immediate economic impact on Australian agriculture and it has the resources. They even give ENSO weather reports.



Issued on Tuesday 10 September 2013

The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) remains neutral, with virtually all indicators at near-normal levels. Only cloudiness near the Date Line shows a weak La Niña-like signal. International climate models surveyed by the Bureau of Meteorology indicate that the tropical Pacific will remain ENSO-neutral for the remainder of 2013. Only one of the seven models surveyed suggests a brief period of La Niña-like cooling of the tropical Pacific.

The negative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) event has weakened considerably over the past month and a half, with IOD-neutral values prevailing since early August. The consensus of climate models is for the IOD to remain neutral for the remainder of the year, suggesting that the 2013 negative IOD is most likely at an end.

Next update expected on 24 September 2013


If the forecast for neutral ENSO and IOD holds for the rest of the year, Australia is in for a long hot summer.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 





We can discuss what the PDO is and what it isn't, how it affects SST, SLP or deep ocean upwelling, its relation to ENSO etc.


Pacific Decadal Oscillation

Numerous studies have attempted to determine the effect of the PDO and ENSO on each other. The results have been largely inconclusive and/or contradictory. However, a study by Gershunov and Barnett (1998) shows that the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO. The climate signal of El Niño is likely to be stronger when the PDO is highly positive; conversely the climate signal of La Niña will be stronger when the PDO is highly negative. This does not mean that the PDO physically controls ENSO, but rather that the resulting climate patterns interact with each other.


I apologized for my incorrect assertion that they the PDO controlled ENSO. What more can I say about it?

You want actual data? According to this, the PDO has been mostly negative during the La Nina events of the last decade which 'amplified' the La Nina cooling effect. It was also highly positive for all of 1997 and the first half of 1998, which of course 'amplified' the El Nino warming effect.

You MUST account for mitigating factors when trying to find the underlying temperature signals.


, if you stop linking outdated articles or propaganda sites disguised as science blogs as a source.


As it turns out, I did neither.
edit on 22/9/2013 by rnaa because: correct markup



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 


I am not trained in, nor self-informed about, the subject of, well, whatever it's being called now. It had been global cooling, then global warming, then anthropocentric global warming, then climate change. See how ignorant of the science I am?

But while I don't know the science as well as rnaa, or TheRedneck, to take examples just from this page, you have given me an opinion which will do until I learn better. I looked at your thread, which you referenced, and stopped after the first page. I was left with the impression that you thought people who disagreed with you were in a process similar to grieving, an emotional, irrational state.

From that thread and this:

I would like to know, do you think your level of denial could be a coping mechanism?

I think there is a selfish ingredient to the denial of what is clearly obvious at this point.


Clearly obvious? I can't imagine a scientist faced with the dissent, questionable data (see hockey stick, etc.), and models which don't accurately predict, would ever say it's clearly obvious. You also claimed that 97% of the scientists were in your camp. Even if I believed, which I don't, that that accurately represents the opinions of the scientists solidly trained in this field, it wouldn't end the discussion for me.

If one scientist raises an objection that the theory can't fit or explain, then the theory is flawed and has to be worked on some more. Politics is the field for majority rule, not science.

As a climate outsider, but a moderately educated one, I find the constant hysteria over climate (going back at least 40 years), the insistence that the absolute truth has been found, and the requirement that life on earth must be fundamentally changed, seems to sound more like hysterical alarmism than science.

You may be right, anything's possible, but if climate "warners" are ignored, it's because they dress their "truth" in the clothes of a lie.



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 




I am not trained in, nor self-informed about, the subject of, well, whatever it's being called now. It had been global cooling, then global warming, then anthropocentric global warming, then climate change. See how ignorant of the science I am?


While I don't recall the current trend ever being called 'global cooling' except by science deniers, 'global warming' and 'climate change' are just short hand labels for what is going on. To separate the natural variation in the worlds climate from the warming that is resulting from man-made causes, the word 'anthropocentric' is added.

Many 'deniers' continue to say that the Earth's climate is variable and changing forever. Those 'deniers' are absolutely correct. Those that repeat that mantra over and over in these threads are not wrong, the Earth's climate is naturally variable.

But what we are talking about is not natural variability, we are talking about MAN CAUSED WARMING caused chiefly, but not solely, by carbon dioxide that man has added to the atmosphere in the last 200 or so years.

I also don't like the terms 'global warming' or 'climate change' but they are useful terms. The precise nature of what is happening to the Earth system is that the EXTRA CO2 is trapping more energy, energy that used to escape into space. A system that has more energy than another system is 'warmer'; thus 'global warming' - the Earth has more energy, and is thus warmer. That 'extra' energy expresses itself as changes in the climate.

'Climate' is defined as the 'average weather'. Global temperatures are rising, both in the land surface and in the sea, these warmer temperatures affect the atmosphere's ability to hold water, the ocean currents, the jet stream, everything that is weather related. More energy in the system means more variable weather and the 'average weather' changes - thus "Climate Change".

There is no reason to be intimidated by terminology. But remember that when people are discussing recent Climate Change or Global Warming they are really referring to 'anthropogenic', that is, 'man-caused' Climate Change or Global Warming. It is pointless to shout 'natural climate change' when we are talking about 'man-caused Climate Change'.




If one scientist raises an objection that the theory can't fit or explain, then the theory is flawed and has to be worked on some more.


That is exactly why science is science and religion is religion. When new observations show that a theory is flawed, then science goes to work on those flaws. Is the observation wrong? Are their mitigating factors that weren't accounted for? Is it a genuinely new conditions that hasn't been seen before? Does the theory need to be expanded or revised?

In science, a theory is a set of hypotheses that have been tested thoroughly and demonstrated to be a good description for past observations and good predictors for future observations. New data seldom causes a 'proper' theory to be overthrown. Hypotheses on the other hand are thrown out all the time.



Politics is the field for majority rule, not science. As a climate outsider, but a moderately educated one, I find the constant hysteria over climate (going back at least 40 years), the insistence that the absolute truth has been found, and the requirement that life on earth must be fundamentally changed, seems to sound more like hysterical alarmism than science.


Science NEVER insists that "the absolute truth has been found". Never. That is Religion, not Science, that does that. Nothing is ever absolutely certain in Science.

Furthermore, Science does not propose that 'life on earth must be fundamentally changed'; Science merely reports what is going on in the world. If people are happy to condemn their children and grandchildren to an Earth with an extremely diminished capacity to provide them with the abundant lifestyle we have grown accustomed too, that is the people's choice.

Note however that Scientists are people too, and have children and grandchildren too. Scientists have a stake in what kind of world their children and grandchildren are handed. Scientists most certainly have a right and, as knowledgeable people, the obligation to warn about the effects the current behaviour is going to have.

Science does not insist that ' 'life on earth must be fundamentally changed', but Scientists certainly support the idea that man's behaviour must be fundamentally changed if our children are to have anything like the life that we enjoy.
edit on 22/9/2013 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Dear rnaa,

Thank you for your thorough, kind, and patient response.

My reference to global cooling does not refer to the current trend, but rather to the excitement in the 1970s as discussed in the book Ice Age 2000. My point in mentioning it at all was that climate modelling was wildly immature and inaccurate at that time, and I have no compelling reason to believe it is accurate now.

If I recall, some posters have commented on the extraordinarily complex mix of factors which determine our climate. (I remember Ronald Reagan commenting on "cow farts" affecting the atmosphere. He was laughed at, primarily because he was Reagan, but, surprise!)

It would seem, and remember I'm uninformed, that current models take so few variables into account that an accurate prediction would be a statistical fluke. Every prediction gets redone every few years to take into account new data and ideas on what might be important to the climate.

I suppose I'm not convinced that the science on the subject is robust yet. Apparently there are some scientists who agree.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


(I added some more commentary to my previous post via an edit).



My reference to global cooling does not refer to the current trend, but rather to the excitement in the 1970s as discussed in the book Ice Age 2000.


I understand. That was an hypothesis, and it was never supported by anywhere near a majority of scientists. That was the context of my remark. As I said in the added part of my post above, that is how science works - observations are made and hypotheses are presented that try to explain those observations and predict future observations. What happened here was that the 70's was cold, someone suggested an explanation, but it failed to accurately predict future observations and was discarded.

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s



It would seem, and remember I'm uninformed, that current models take so few variables into account that an accurate prediction would be a statistical fluke.


So because you are uninformed, you think that people who work on this every day, who have made it their life's work to 'get it right', in short people who are not only informed but are experts in their field, don't know how many variables are involved, how to figure out which ones are important, and which ones don't really affect the results all that much? A few years ago there was a 'controversy' that said that climate models didn't include the solar variability, and therefore they were all wrong. In fact solar variability is a rather well known phenomenon and it would be a pretty stupid modeler to risk credibility by leaving out such a fundamental energy input, especially when increased retention of solar energy is driver of the whole shebang. Climate models do account for solar output variation, and it turns out that it does not account for the warming.



Every prediction gets redone every few years to take into account new data and ideas on what might be important to the climate.


Exactly, because you are uninformed, you have no basis to make any conclusion about how many variables are taken into account in any given model. What predictions are changed every few years? The Earth is going to get warmer - that hasn't changed for decades. The Antarctic ice cap is going to be reduced, the Arctic sea ice is going to be reduced - these haven't changed for decades. Specific time frames change all the time, sure, but the 'big event' predictions are still there. So you need to be specific about what it is you are seeing change.

I am (vaguely) aware that there are hundreds of models, each taking different variables into account. Physics is physics and chemistry is chemistry, but one model matches observations against tree-ring data, another against ice core data, another against some thing else, another against all of them at the same time, etc, etc, etc. Thousands of executions of each model with different values for thousands of variables, will the PDO go positive or negative, will the SOI go positive or negative, will solar output increase or decrease, will we double our CO2 output, etc, etc; what will happen if the temperature rises one degree or two degrees or three degrees?. The results always change according to time scale, but good models generally agree as to the 'big picture'. And there are plenty of good models.

And that is just on the grand scale. There are dozens of different models that try to predict what the 'smaller' things are doing, like what the Southern Oscillation Index (El Nino/La Nina) is going to do. The Australian Bureau of Meterology compares may of them when making its prediction. This is vitally important to Australian agriculture because it is a strong predictor for rain fall. It is also a major input into large scale climate models.



I suppose I'm not convinced that the science on the subject is robust yet. Apparently there are some scientists who agree.

I can't deny that.

Again, that is part of what makes science robust. Some (though very few) of those 'dissident' scientists may even actually be involved in climate science, as opposed to say, geology, for one prime example of whom I am aware. Remember that Albert Einstein was not convinced by Quantum Mechanics ("God doesn't play dice"), and yet the computer you are using wouldn't work if Quantum Mechanics wasn't 'correct'.

The number that is thrown around is that 'only' 97% of scientists agree that the global warming since the 19th century is man-made. But it is telling that they don't tell you that of the 3% they identify as not agreeing are almost entirely made up of people who have nothing to do with climate science, even in a peripheral way. They occasionally identify someone who has expressed doubts about one finding or about a nuance to some given hypothesis and then declare that scientist is a global warming skeptic or even denier. That is intellectually dishonest. Science works by scientists challenging their colleagues, it is the fundamental method to ensure quality results.

That you admit to being uninformed and unconvinced doesn't say anything at all about the quality or robustness of the science. All that it says is that you have chosen to remain uninformed, and therefore, IMO, unconvinced. Because to inform yourself, and understand what is going on, is to become convinced.


edit on 23/9/2013 by rnaa because: grammer

edit on 23/9/2013 by rnaa because: grammer again



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

Dear rnaa,

I think I understand your frustration with me, but I also think you are being critical of a product that I wasn't selling. As you pointed out, and I admitted freely, I am not trained or schooled in these matters. How many people do you think are, 1/1,000 of 1%?

I have never claimed to have scientific evidence supporting one side or the other, I declared myself to be an "outsider." A relatively educated and interested outsider, but still, as outside as you can get. I do, however, present myself as a citizen, the kind who votes and discusses things. One of the very people that both sides seek to persuade one way or the other.

I take note that the world hasn't ended, that none of the models seem to be accurate 5 years out, let alone 100, that data has been reported as "fudged" by certain researchers, that this subject seems to be attracting heated controversy within the scientific community unlike most disagreements, that the glacier reports from the IPCC were wrong, that national and scientific leaders are quoted as saying that climate change will provide the impetus for a new form of government, and more.

I look at all of this and say, "Something's fishy, here." That leads me to believe that this is politics disguised as science with money at the bottom of it in the form of payments to the UN and grants to researchers. As a political issue, it will not be resolved by scientists, but by governments. Given that, wouldn't I be wise to focus on the politics instead of the science?

I'm an outsider, a sheep, and one that is being made increasingly uncomfortable by those claiming disaster if we don't get rid of the internal combustion engine or something. It doesn't help that it's those in the Western world who need to make the sacrifice.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 





Let me make sure I understand you. You are saying that the "El Nino Southern Oscillation" (ENSO), which is measured by the "Southern Oscillation Index" (SOI), which in turn is defined as the "Mean Sea Level Pressure difference between Tahiti and Darwin", is somehow different for Australia than it is for, say Brazil or Russia? Is that right?


No i didn't say that. I said that the effects of the 2010-11 La Nina were apparently record breaking for Australia but not for the rest of the globe.

Let's keep it simple. You said the massive last La Nina fueled by the PDO was/is surpressing Global Mean Temperature Rise. A statement now relativated to an amplification effect of the PDO, to support your claim you linked the same source you've quoted to support your other claim -


They influence each other and produce similar effects, but at different latitudes.


They do not produce similar effects, they're teleconnected, but entirely different phenomena.

That's why i said 'outdated' and linked two more recent studies. You should read them. Even wikipedia knows.



Wiki gets it right sometimes

Several studies have indicated that the PDO index can be reconstructed as the superimposition of tropical forcing and extra-tropical processes. Thus, unlike ENSO, the PDO is not a single physical mode of ocean variability, but rather the sum of several processes with different dynamic origins.


If you would've bothered to read at least one of the studies you'd know.



ENSO-Forced Variability of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation

The PDO is dependent upon ENSO on all timescales. To the first order, the PDO can be considered the reddened response to both atmospheric noise and ENSO, resulting in more decadal variability than either. This null hypothesis needs to be considered when diagnosing and modeling ‘‘internal’’ decadal variability in the North Pacific.

For example, the observed spatial pattern of Pacific SST decadal variability, with relatively higher amplitude in the extratropics than in the Tropics, should be at least partly a consequence of a reddened ENSO response.

The confusion occurs because there is some correlation of the PDO between consecutive summers, but this is likely a consequence of the annual cycle of ENSO and the strong ENSO–PDO relationship that exists in both summer and winter; that is, a growing ENSO forces the PDO in summer, the subsequent mature phase of ENSO forces the PDO the following winter/spring, and this North Pacific SST anomaly then persists into the early part of the following summer.


In summary - ENSO is a physical phenomenon directly affecting Sea Surface Temperatures and subsequently climate conditions all over the world while the PDO is a apparently a combination of ocean/atmosphere coupled effects that shift the spatial pattern of SST and Sea Level Pressure mainly in the extratropics.

There is much more to both, but they're fundamentally different.



That leaves the effect of the recent La Nina years on global temperatures. Show me.


edit on 23-9-2013 by talklikeapirat because: radiative flux



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 07:59 AM
link   

poet1b
reply to post by MamaJ
 



The changes have effected me and those I love.


Anyone who has children and grandchildren should recognize this.

The way I see it, they keep saying nothing big is going to happen for a hundred years, because that is so far in the future, no one seriously worries about it, but when I look at the data, I see serious changes in the next couple of decades.





But the serious changes are NOT because of global warming. They are NOT because the globe is heating up. The ROOT problem is the connection between the Earth and Sun. It is because the Sun is being effected by WHERE it is traveling through. There is like an umbilical chord that connects the Sun and Earth. Strange, but true!

I am serious when I say our past, our history, what we know thus far, is that this situation is beginning to appear as a mini ice age.

What the authorities are doing to combat the issues are only making it worse.

The Earth KNOWS how to configure and sustain its self, however we on the other hand want control and try to put science behind the issue to correct it. Problem is we do not understand HOW to leave well enough alone.



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Kali74
reply to post by MamaJ
 


El Nino... 1998 was an extremely warm year because of it.


I realize this ^^^^!!

What I wanted from you is to go all the way to the root issue. WHAT CAUSED El Nino? Go to the root issue.

The root issue is NOT "global warming".



posted on Sep, 23 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
majority of scientists might be more interested in funding and fame than "truth"

THE TRUTH WEARS OFF
www.neurofly.com...

But what we might consider softer fraud—or "undisclosed flexibility" in data collection—is well documented and appears to be very widespread.

Read more at: phys.org...




Over the past few years, there has been a growing awareness that many experimentally established "facts" don't seem to hold up to repeated investigation.

This was highlighted in a 2010 article in the New Yorker entitled The Truth Wears Off and since then, there have been many popular press accounts of different aspects of science's current reproducibility crisis.

These include an exposé of the increasing number of retractions by scientific journals and damning demonstrations of failures to replicate high profile studies.

Articles in recent days have discussed how the majority of scientists might be more interested in funding and fame than "truth" and are becoming increasingly reluctant to share unpublished details of their work.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join