"Replication Crisis" = fully justified skepticism. "New data from Retraction Watch, a website which pioneered the collection of retractions, shows they are on the rise in the United States. WUNC data reporter Jason deBruyn talks about some major academic fraud cases that have played out in North Carolina in the past few years. He also discusses the implications of fraudulent or false scientific studies on the quality and legitimacy of medical treatment." NPR, WUNC, A Rise In Retractions Reveals Holes In The Scientific System, By LAURA PELLICER & FRANK STASIO • OCT 12, 2017. http://www.wunc.org/post/rise-retractions-reveals-holes-scientific-system#stream/0
Sure, like that means anything. Of course it wasn't. No such evidence could ever be found, because the opportunity to find it is decades behind us.
Do you deny that the replication crisis justifies skepticism? Or are you denting that there is a replication crisis?
you have zero scientific relevancy... cut n paste, fake science, conspiracy....but asked to ask a real science question on a science thread and you want nothing to do with it
I don't deny that there is a "replication crisis". Nor do deny that failing to replicate another person's work justifies skepticism. What I am telling you is that a failure to replicate a particular work of science in no way means science is fake. It just means that the submission does not rise to the standard of scientific consensus. And none of that in any way refutes that fact that the Earth is warming and that it is via GHGs modulated by human emissions that are the primary cause. If you disagree then present an abundance of evidence that show either that the Earth isn't warming or that physical processes that are primarily modulated by nature are the cause. I think what's going on here is that you know there is little evidence that exists to do this and you know that the evidence which supports vast so instead of coming up with better theory you use "nuh-uh" arguments or just call everything fake or a hoax.
Is this unwarranted criticism? "So in 2013, many took notice of a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that seemed to provide some proof. The study found that people eating the Mediterranean diet supplemented with olive oil were 30 percent less likely to experience a heart attack, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than people assigned to a low-fat diet. People who stuck with a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts had a 28 percent lower risk than those asked to follow a low-fat diet. The results got wide media attention, including from NPR. But the New England Journal of Medicine retracted the paper Wednesday because of problems in the way the study was carried out. NPR, Errors trigger retraction of study on Mediterranean diet's heart benefits, Health, Alison McCook, Jun 13, 2018. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/...ction-study-mediterranean-diet-heart-benefits
Yet another irrational ad hominem personal attack. Substantive rebuttal works better. Give it a try. Google: "climate change event" "asteroids" "The Sun" ... etc. and if you learn something interesting start a new thread instead of desperately trying to derail this one. Focus: "Why is there a debate over global warming?"
You don't really believe that only Republicans are critical of The Clintons. Why pretend that you do? Perceived political expediency? “WASHINGTON — IT says a lot about our relationship with Hillary Clinton that she seems well on her way to becoming Madam President because she’s not getting indicted. If she were still at the State Department, she could be getting fired for being, as the F.B.I. director told Congress, “extremely careless” with top-secret information.” THE NEW YORK TIMES, The Clinton Contamination, By Maureen Dowd, 7/6/16. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/the-clinton-contamination.html?_r=0
You failed to address the central point - that Clinton is used as a handy scapegoat by the GOP. Beyond that, let's remember that Secretaries of State Condi Rice and Powell got classified information on private email as well. I'm in favor of the new standard, but I don't see it being enforced before Clinton - or now!
. Page A1 in the NYT. Fake News? "In fact, the week before the New York Times put the replication crisis on A1, science journalist Christie Aschwanden laid out these facts in great detail in a wonderful article and interactive for FiveThirtyEight. Her piece runs through the many biases, errors, and inefficiencies of modern scientific practice that allow false findings to infiltrate the literature. Researchers can hack their way to spurious conclusions, and they’re incentivized to hide negative results. Journal editors ignore replication failures, and they’re often slow to fix mistakes." SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017. http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html
Do you really think scientists rejected Schneider's advice? Hell, he won a AAAS award for his advice on fudging data. What is the fruit of the poisoned tree?
Republicans can't help but notice when The Clintons and other exposed corrupt Democrats get away with so much and continue to prosper. RP leaders get caught and they are done, Nixon resigned under pressure crying with snot running down his face. Americans prefer winners. You know if you have read many of my posts for any length of time that I have little use for the RP or its leaders, but they are not the subject of this thread. Fake Science transcends party politics. Macron has just discovered that the hard way.
TThis is the question under discussion. "Why is there a debate over global warming?" I have answered that question and backed it up with sources from your side of the "global warming" debate.
You think Benghazzi was just an issue for the RP? Even Clinton’s defenders now know exactly how flawed, corrupt and vulnerable she was and is. But that has nothing to do with the debate on global warming and Fake Science. “For that reason, the investigation could undermine Clinton’s case that her judgment makes her better suited to be president. Comey explicitly said that though there was not “clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.” The accusation of carelessness may undercut Clinton’s case that she, unlike Trump, is an experienced and steady hand, capable of keeping the nation safe. The charge also threatens to feed suspicions harbored by her opponents that the Democratic candidate doesn’t think the rules apply to her. That, in turn, could further erode public confidence in Clinton.” THE ATLANTIC, Why Hillary Clinton Can't Escape Controversy, July 5, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...nghazi/490052/ https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-hillary-clinton-cant-escape-215327919.html The DP clearly should have nominated Sanders.
Yes. I know this because there has been no substantiated claim that there is a conspiracy to fudge climate data.
I don't see that the Clinton's got away with anything. Let's remember that Condi Rice and Powell both used private email with secure documents. Certainly not anything of the scale as this administration's dealings with the Russians in our elections.
Whether there is a "conspiracy" is irrelevant. Exposed wide spread Fake Science, the replication crisis is a documented reality that has undermined the credibility of science generally including climate science. A much higher standard of proof will be needed in the future than has been accepted in the past. Scientists, especially political "scientists" will have to get used to it.
You should start a new thread on what the DP vs the RP gets away with or on "Russia collusion". It is not the subject here.
The reason why there is debate over global warming is the same reason there was debate over the link between CFCs and ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide and acid rain, smoking and cancer, etc. There are people who make it there mission to deny any and everything science accomplishes if it means learning that some of our behaviors are harmful to ourselves, others, or the environment. They are merchants of doubt that erroneously cast any relevant scientific advancements into question in the hopes of delaying or preventing any action to remediate the harm. In the case of global warming the campaign to defraud the public was started by many of the same individuals that defrauded the public over the same items listed above.
GD Republicans, conservatives and libertarians! Right? "The organization that uncovered the world of offshore tax havens and rogue international finance in the Panama Papers and Luxembourg Leaks has shifted its attention to fake science. In collaboration with reporters from 18 news outlets all over the world, German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung examined 175,000 scientific articles published by five of the world’s most prominent pseudo-scientific publishing platforms. The result? The collaboration found that some 400,000 scientists worldwide have been published in these journals since 2013." MOTHER JONES, 400,000 Scientists All Over the World Have Been Published in Fake Journals, Journalists investigated widespread fraud within the scientific publishing community., BY KARI SONDEJUL. 20, 2018. https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/07/real-news-tackles-fake-science/
Actually it is all over the news, every day. Then we look at the places where it is not winter. https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/ASXX0112:1:AS
