The outcome would be doubly sad because Lönnstedt and Dixson served as role models in a field where women are underrepresented, says Sandra Binning of the University of Montreal
The entire article is fascinating, provided you read between the lines.
Marine biology is perhaps the most feminized field in all of science because, you know, girls like dolphins. It's also radically left-wing for this reason, which is why so much of the science is so bad.
Naturally, the men pointing this out are called "bros", and their findings are disparaged for being cruel and motivated by malice - you know, "muh feelings". Can't be using good science to disprove or challenge bad science if the latter was performed by women.
Of course, the women are a smokescreen for the real liars, who condemn all critical challenges of their perfect unassailable findings as motivated by jealousy and ego. Nevermind that those findings were conveniently explosive enough to drive funding for more than a decade, after which time those studies proved more or less incorrect.
But hey, the "scientists" have excuses for that, too. Like they always do whenever they can't actually prove the incendiary, policy-deciding conclusions they've generated with their "science". And as expected, the real problem with aggressive peer review is the possibility that it might discredit the whole field - because yes, the pirates are petty enough to sink the ship.
This all mirrors the rampant dishonesty and corruption we've seen from every soft science over the last several years. From sociology to psychology to climate science, we've witnessed a steady march of activists scientists making insane claims based on fraudulent data that cannot be reproduced.
Then, when actual scientists challenge those claims, it's the same radical leftist excuses you see everywhere else: you're sexist for challenging researchers who happen to be women; you're hurting the credibility of "science" by checking questionable results; your findings are suspect because you're a straight white male.
The truth that very few people want to accept: STEM has fallen. It was converged just like any other institution, by a combination of radleft activists cooking the books and corporate and donor interests funding the revolution.
Marine biology is perhaps the most feminized field in all of science because, you know, girls like dolphins.
Perhaps? Is this your own guess, or do you have any data to back it up?
And as expected, the real problem with aggressive peer review is the possibility that it might discredit the whole field - because yes, the pirates are petty enough to sink the ship.
If psychology is any guide, a replication crisis doesn't prevent the "scientists" from continuing on their merry way and making all sorts of assertions not backed up by any facts.
He's not completely wrong. Marine Bio departments in universities will have a larger percentage of girls in the classes than other STEM fields from what I've seen as well. What he's ignoring though is that this is one of those fields where there are actually pretty few new jobs each year. He's extrapolating what happens in universities that are happy to take your cash for useless degrees and extrapolating that it affects who does the actual science which is where the argument falls apart.
The original claim was that 'marine science' is dominated by women more than any other field of science. This only shows that, like biology in general, women are in the majority here.
He specifically made the claim about 'marine biology', and connected it to a cause which sounded quite absurd, dolphins. If other parts of biology are just as or even more female than marine biology, then the claim that marine biology is less rigorous because it's predominantly female is also shown to be false.
I asked for some evidence, which he was completely incapable of providing.
Anthropogenic Climate Change, is in fact, an existential threat due to it's inevitable effect on human systems.
That's precisely why the investigations should go forward.
The seven were an “odd little bro-pocket” whose “whole point is to harm other scientists,” marine ecologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill—who hasn’t collaborated with Dixson and Munday—tweeted in October 2020. “The cruelty is the driving force of the work.”
This is the whine of "I fucking love science" style propagandist running into someone that actually demands a defense of your work. It took 40 years of Higgs' theories being tested before the Higgs-Boson particle could be proven to exist. The Scientific Establishment has a real problem sometimes with Science. Einstein refused to tolerate Quantum Mechanics. Millikan's Oil Drop experiment actually managed to practically prove that electrons had specific charges, and not a continuous stream; but he committed fraud to do it and stole a Nobel Prize from his grad student. I think the Fourier Series wasn't even accepted mathematics until the son of a bitch politically replaced committee members with his own friends who mathematically proved the validity of the series decades earlier.
Fuck your "public attitudes over the scientific debate". Stand on the fucking data and don't back down.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it is in fact real, it is the greatest threat to humanity by a long shot.
So, in order to make sure it is in fact real, we should rigorously review every bit of data about it.
If you have a gun pointed at your head and some people are saying it's real while others say it's fake, it behooves you to be very sure which it is before you make any decisions regarding it.
Anyone trying to convince you not to double check the findings isn't actually concerned about the gun, they're concerned about their own agenda.
It's not real though. Eugenicists in the mid 20th century went straight into environmentalism. It's a big scam. It's flat earther level bullshit. I used to think that too, that "we better get this right just in case" and what I have found is there is no evidence at all that there is even the slightest concern. If you look at people studying science that make money from grants, you'll notice their research is only funded if they come to the "right" conclusions. If you say anything against the narrative - despite whatever evidence you may have - you will be shut down. Want to get paid? Fudge the results that climate alarmism is necessary. You atheists all don't seem to realize, if you don't believe in God you will be gullible enough to "believe in science", to "trust the experts". I care about the truth, and if so-called scientists are telling lies I call their bullshit out.
Yeah, man, we pretty much all know it's not real. That's not the point.
The point is that if someone claims the sky is falling but then tells you not to check to see if the sky is actually falling, then they're not actually concerned about it and are only concerned with manipulating you.
I have checked to see if the "sky is falling". It's not. Once you know the truth - that this climate hysteria is a hoax - everything makes more sense. Believing in climate change hysteria is basically a religion - it is based on faith, not science.
You're right, it isn't real. But these shitbags are using the fear they can stir up to implement what appears to be their preferred solution to anything - feudalism masquerading as socialism. And they keep producing shit science to fan the flames ever-higher - so let's cut 'em off at the knees and discredit the unworthy science they're producing/
That's asinine. Of course humans are altering atmospheric chemical concentrations, and of course that effects the climate, because it relates to an energy equation.
The pandemic is also a real pandemic, I don't know what else to tell you on that. Debate the deaths all you want, that's perfectly reasonable. But the virus itself is not a fiction.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
You have the firm eat the cost and go out of business for being unprofitable (the correct decision, but you lose political control over your cartel)
You have the local farmers eat the cost by having them go out of business, which threatens your political control over your food supply from angry farmers.
You make consumers pay a shitload more in taxes or inflation to offset the decreasing price of food, which will weaken political control over them and foment significant resentment against the government.
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
The climate is a problem in the same way that this "pandemic" of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is a problem. Climate exists, humans do contribute to some of the chemicals in the air, but climate change is about as lethal as the kung flu.
I'd say that that the pandemic has killed more people and is a much more serious problem in the short run. Climate Change will be a significant issue in the long run and it will have made significant alterations in our civilizaitonal systems.
"Elites" that love crowing about how you shouldn't eat burgers cuz of "climate" are still buying houses in the Maldives, the same Maldives that were supposed by experts to be underwater by now. Insurers are still writing policies on them that according to the climate "experts" are guaranteed losing bets in a pretty short term.
Well, you already saw my other point about how Climate Change will effect the agricultural industry. As for the buying land, it's a similar thing. They don't give a shit about 100 years of Climate Change and the water encroaching on their beach front property over the next 5 decades. The houses are merely an investment vehicle. They plan to sell that shit, probably in 5-10 years.
The actual experts aren't loosing any bets on Climate Change. Look at the USGS increased flood risk maps. My area has a small increase in the flood plain. That's what you should continue to expect. The insurers aren't refusing to write policies because the USGS already told them what to expect. Yes, you can buy a house there. It's not going to sink into the ocean for 100 years.
I'd be more worried about a house near a river compared to a house on the beach. Yes the ocean will encroach over time, but due to increased water amounts, the course of the river is likely to change, and rivers can change rather quickly.
False. Stop believing lies you hear on fox news or cnn. Most deaths listed as covid deaths were not covid deaths. Climate change will never be a significant issue.
I miss the days when the concern was focused on more generic pollution like companies dumping industrial waste in the rivers and such. Now no one gives a shit about rivers of plastic and chemicals freely flowing all over Asia, but somehow the first world where that's mostly been heavily punished is the biggest worstest threat to the environment.
Not quite. They have a smaller number because their economy is smaller. But population is not the relevant measurement there. It should be divided by GDP - because what you want is the greatest amount of production for the lowest amount of pollution. If you live in caves, you're not going to cause much pollution either.
The environmental cultists also never gave much of a damn about the extreme pollution taking place in the USSR. Funny how all these cultists never give a damn about what they purport to stand for, unless it's something they can burn down the west for.
I mean, 'We're doomed' has been repeated regularly over the last 50 years and has yet to manifest in any conceivable way, they just move to the next big lie. You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.' when Chicken Little is still screaming his head off about it.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more, but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
What made me most skeptical about the AGW/CC narrative is that all the solutions offered were political, and really excellent solutions that work right now, like nuclear power, were actively suppressed by the same "recommendations".
It's a cult. If they actually believed that CC is an existential threat, they would be pushing nuclear power despite their misgivings. France mostly has nuclear power, and it is yet to blow up.
You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.'
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them, but frankly, calling them a hoax is being gentle. 'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
Few arguments there, I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about.
Fair, I wasn't communicating clearly there. "Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe. If it's a published paper, I'll at least humor the idea and see if it remains internally consistent. If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
That said, I can't blame those that just go 'It's a hoax' still. Because after fifty years of Chicken Little screaming for attention, you either tune him out or you become the next Chicken Little.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them
No, alarmists have no nugget of truth to offer whatsoever. None of this nonsense was backed by "the scientific consensus" that they always brag about. It's mostly pushed by the media. and activists.
'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
Depends on who you are talking about. The alarmists, that is correct, but that wouldn't make the whole thing a hoax.
I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
The funny thing is that this will likely use up more resources than just importing them made from cheap plastic from China. Why that is 'sustainable', no one knows.
"Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe.
I agree with that, although I will say that science 'magazines' are generally propaganda outlets. What is semi-respectable is the science journals, but even they are being increasingly corruptetd by IDPol.
If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
Yes, that is a very good reason to be skeptical of that - and any other 'crisis' pushed, which generally are completely bogus and advanced by people who want to increase their own power.
Midwits take things at face value. The wise see everything the way it actually is; in terms of narrative. The climate is always changing and human development has negligible effects. The narrative behind it is like all other narratives propogated by the Globo Homo elites, to grab more power.
It is negligible. Whether it's wet or dry or hot or cold all weather conditions are always blamed on climate change. The weather channel freaks out if there's a below average hurricane season (climate change reducing hurricanes), an average hurricane season (climate change causes hurricanes) or an above average hurricane season (climate change is causing more hurricanes), and this is the narrative all the time from all institutions. The reason this is pushed, is so the globo homo elites can cripple the people by depriving them of the only cheap reliable source of energy - fossil fuels (how many times have you heard of goals of reaching "carbon nuetral?". Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to the environment at all. It is like saying water is harmful for fish... Look up the Club of Rome. This all is a bogus hoax and has been for a long time.
Whenever it's too wet or too dry or too hot or too cold it's always blamed on climate change.
That has no bearing on the validity of the original thing.
The reason this is pushed, is so the globo homo elites can cripple the people by depriving them of the only cheap reliable source of energy - fossil fuels
That is certainly a reason why it's exaggerated and there is so much alarmism. It doesn't invalidate the original thing though, same for the virus whose existence you also deny.
This all is a bogus hoax and has been for a long time.
You didn't explain how one determines that someone is a member of 'the wise'.
Fuck your "public attitudes over the scientific debate". Stand on the fucking data and don't back down.
Unless your fucking lying.
Then resign out of disgrace.
vs
Anthropogenic Climate Change, is in fact, an existential threat due to it's inevitable effect on human systems.
any study that shows anthropogenic climate change is always based on bs statistics manipulation. go into into the papers, examine them. how many times were we supposed to have global environmental collapse already? didnt al gore promise 2008 as doomsday the first time? then 2012, then 2020. nope we still here.
any climate change paper is filled with bogus stats and moving goal posts
any study that shows anthropogenic climate change is always based on bs statistics manipulation.
No, but it is going to have to be based on statistical abstraction and possible knock-on effects if you're not studying localized effects for specific areas. Beneficial effects like the warming of northern Canada which may make it more habitable for multiple species including human expansion and development, and harmful effects like the salinization of the Falkland's Islands aquifer which would prevent any practical human occupation of the Island.
go into into the papers, examine them.
Yes.
how many times were we supposed to have global environmental collapse already?
None.
didnt al gore promise 2008 as doomsday the first time? then 2012, then 2020. nope we still here.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. I had a Environmental Sciences class where we literally watched the movie and tore apart all the mistakes in it. He was pushing alarmism that the Science isn't actually alleging.
Any good climate paper is sufficiently detailed in chemistry to make it a bit hard to read. If you don't see error bars, throw it away, it's not science.
That's part of the issue here. The actual, detailed, scientific investigation is utterly unrelated to the morons in the media and watermellon communists.
Don't forget Galileo, who was willing to get imprisoned rather than meekly accept the consensus (though he did need quite some time to work up to it, perhaps not surprising given that this was the entire weight of the inquisition he was facing)
Grow a fucking backbone and defend your work. You're right - this is important, and it's important we get it right.
The Galileo story is even funnier when you consider that the Church damn well knew that heliocentrism was probably "scientifically" correct, since they were already using that model to figure out Easter (Copernicus explained the precession of Mars better, and his model was more accurate than Ptolemy's).
It was the usual suspects, the Unwashed Masses who thought the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. The Church apparently wanted to spread the news their own way - ie, to "control the narrative" so that the herd wouldn't be ... spooked, or whatever happens when universe-changing information comes along. Galileo was jumping the gun, and the Church didn't trust the People not to lose their nuts over the news.
Not really. "This is false because X believes it" is a classic ad hominem and quite ridiculous. Thunberg may have any number of notions that are not false. Nor do her beliefs invalidate the science that is out there, just as exaggerations by other alarmists do not invalidate it.
Also, what's your basis that she will be trans soon?
No one is 'trans', and no one ever will be. More like, she will put on a baseball cap and falsely assert that she is a man.
Why? Her parents can milk this 'climate change' thing for only so long, for attention. They will need some novelty in order to keep attention. Besides, she's autistic, and therefore ripe material for being recruited to the cult.
I don't agree, but I do agree that it's vastly exaggerated. Hence the "that is out there", as opposed to The Science(tm) which they continually scream about, despite knowing next to nothing about i.
Well, I pretty much live by the idea that everything feminists say or do is the opposite of a good thing.
Fair point, but I can't see it. She'd lose what little credibility she has from that, as well as become a lot less interesting to leftists, because she's technically a white male now.
Ideologically, this has been true for a long time. Anthropology, sociology, psychology are useless fields basically because of ideology alone.
But now it's not even just ideologically fucked though. It has ossified into an uncheckable cabal.
I know there are people who don't like the IDW people, but Bret Weinstein's
'we've artifically evolved lab mice to have long telomeres* making them useless for the research we use them for' story should be standard knowledge. Science, including medical science, is fucked. The replication crisis has hit medical science just as hard, or harder, than it has hit other science. Takeaway: Don't take drugs or use products until they've been used by human beings for a significant period of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo
A pure pragmaticism must now be taken. Can't assume ANYTHING is safe based on 'science'. Bridges, drugs, anything. Must wait for lengthy human testing.
*making their cell-repair/reproduction extreme, and their baseline cancer rates very high, masking toxicities in drugs, underplaying the effects of radiation.
For the longest time, the global warmers engaged in disappearing weather station fraud. More northern weather stations would mysteriously disappear from the data, making the averages seem warmer. Then NASA came out with some satellites, and the human factor in measuring temperature disappeared and with it the supposed warming trend came to a screeching halt. They learned their lesson, and so now their focus has been on the ocean, and more specifically deep ocean temperatures. But the thing is, once again, that requires a large presence of the human factor. Leaves lots of room for data they read, data that they selectively don't choose to include.
Anyhow, all the researchers have gotten the message. Do ocean fraud, or don't get funding. It's that simple.
To be fair, I would say that some of the disappearing weather stations did "disappear", as some of them were just military outposts that are now abandoned strung along the DEW Line, like CFB Alert. The end of the Cold War and advancing technology made the DEW Line obsolete. Totally remote stations would be a more modern thing, I should think, and there likely wouldn't be as many as there used to be military outposts.
But it would be VERY dishonest for anyone arguing for or against "climate change" to ignore that phenomenon.
There's also a second problem with weather stations: A lot of them were originally built in forested and green areas, either in large parks or just outside cities, and over time their surroundings changed, so a weather station that used to be in the middle of a forest is now surrounded by concrete shopping malls and paved parking lots. Nobody seems to want to take that into account.
We are sleepwalking into decade's of lockdowns and its not covid its climate change hoax.
Posted that last march. Now we watch what I said come true.
I also said years ago about being charged for oxygen. Just wait and see
In some form they will sell medication oxygen we breathe doesn't kill us. They will teach kids the ait is prison and with out taking medication we will all die or such. I'm not sure how but I know it's coming
Nobody will abide by those. Covid worked because it scared people.
You can get covid. You can be the unlucky one who gets a bad case of it. Therefore you're scared enough to stay inside.
Climate change doesn't have that immediate consequence, therefore nobody in their right mind will obey climate lockdowns and anyone who suggests them after what 2020 was to most people will regret it.
You are absolutely right here. This is also why I was so confident about that 'curfew for men' that you were panicking about a while back.
Climate change doesn't have that immediate consequence, therefore nobody in their right mind will obey climate lockdowns and anyone who suggests them after what 2020 was to most people will regret it.
They are already suggesting it, but they will be a mad voice in the wilderness.
The seven were an “odd little bro-pocket” whose “whole point is to harm other scientists,” marine ecologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill—who hasn’t collaborated with Dixson and Munday—tweeted in October 2020
Tweeting that should be grounds for immediate review of anything significant they have ever published. No-one with an ounce of integrity or grey matter thinks replication studies' point is to "harm other scientists", they help other honest scientists not waste months of their time chasing fabricated red herrings that have been published unquestioned.
Also that internal misconduct review recommending no further action is a fucking joke.
However, the investigators note inadequate documentation of the research on the part of the accused, with necessary documentation only stored on one computer (which was subsequently
stolen, as confirmed by the report of the theft to the police), and with a lack of back-‐up storage at Uppsala University. However, this cannot be judged to be a sign of any research misconduct.
Yeah, sure, all the raw data happened to be on just one laptop that just happened to be stolen and that's why they can't produce the data now. That doesn't warrant further investigation at all! The 3 professors who did that review also need to get busted down to lab aides.
Universities need to clean fucking house before enough honest scientists band together to do far worse public damage their reputation than this article hand wrings about.
We should make PhDs have to replicate a study (and start the process of replicating a long term study) before they're allowed to publish anything of their own.
And once you do publish, you shouldn't be able to cite anything that hasn't been replicated at least twice.
Although she denies making up data, “There hypothetically could be an error in there,” she said, perhaps because of mistakes in transcribing the data; “I don’t know. I’m human.”
Reminds me of the hate crime hoaxer, learning the police could trace who used the school printer to track who were the suspects producing the "hate material".
"LMAO it's not important. Like, the important thing is the conversation started about racism and hate crimes. Lol, like, everyone uses printers. Forget this! Like, I could have used the printer that day too for all I know! nervous sweating"
see this is when you know they are a cult when they create a conclusion and try to force things in to it rather than letting the evidence decide things.
Getting funding commensurate with the funding available to scientists willing to "prove" a predetermined finding will be difficult, even more so when there is not even a possibility of producing anything novel with the money. It would only make sense as an investment for entities with an interest in the success of scientific research as a whole, but the places that dole out that kind of blue-sky research money also tend to be the most sensitive about damaging the reputation of the academy currently. They'll only be interested in it once the reputation is already ruined and it makes sense as a way to rebuild that reputation.
But beyond that, anyone trying to make the academy actually earn it's position as ultimate arbiter of truth is going to get the full force of rigourous interrogation into their work that everyone else is missing out on. So to be successful they will also need to be one of the most widely read and competent investigators in their field too.
A place to publish, a way to actually get it into a scientific discussion, the fact that they won't secure any funding for the research from state funds, and there isn't much desire in the way of private funds to pay for it.
The seven were an “odd little bro-pocket” whose “whole point is to harm other scientists,” marine ecologist John Bruno of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill—who hasn’t collaborated with Dixson and Munday—tweeted in October 2020. “The cruelty is the driving force of the work.”
Apparently now correcting a falsehood is harmful to “science”.
Climate is defined as Longweather.
The Romans had it warmer, I figure, when I see their short skirts. Did they complain about the longweather?
Could meltdown make the Sahara green again?
Q everything!
Title is very misleading. What has been demonstrated so far is a failure to replicate. It could mean that the first study was erroneous, or the second one, or that either one was a fraud. Fraud is one of the possibilities, not a definitive fact.
Interestingly, there is actual fraud mentioned here, but it's not the main story.
The group learned some painful lessons. After a preliminary inquiry, a UU panel dismissed the request for an investigation in a terse report and berated the team for failing to discuss its concerns with Lönnstedt and Eklöv in a “normal scholarly discussion.” Lönnstedt said the group was simply jealous. The accusers spent many months gathering additional documentation, at the expense of their own research. In April 2017, Sweden’s Central Ethical Review Board concluded there had indeed been “scientific dishonesty” in the research, and Science retracted the paper; 8 months later, a full UU investigation concluded the data had been fabricated. (Eklöv blamed Lönnstedt; Lönnstedt maintained her innocence.)
One of the scientists managed to avoid the Gellman Amnesia effect:
The brazenness of the apparent deception shocked Jutfelt. “It really triggered my skepticism about science massively,” he says. “Before that paper, I could not understand how anyone could fabricate data. It was inconceivable to me.” Now, he began to wonder how many other papers might be a total fantasy. The experience also taught the group that, if they were ever to blow the whistle again, they would have to bring a stronger case right from the start, Clark says.
The story details the earlier fraud as a parallel.
The fraud hasn't been proven because the academy apparently accepts "I'm a woman who made an honest mistake manually copying data into excel" as an excuse for obvious fraud.
The entire article is fascinating, provided you read between the lines.
Marine biology is perhaps the most feminized field in all of science because, you know, girls like dolphins. It's also radically left-wing for this reason, which is why so much of the science is so bad.
Naturally, the men pointing this out are called "bros", and their findings are disparaged for being cruel and motivated by malice - you know, "muh feelings". Can't be using good science to disprove or challenge bad science if the latter was performed by women.
Of course, the women are a smokescreen for the real liars, who condemn all critical challenges of their perfect unassailable findings as motivated by jealousy and ego. Nevermind that those findings were conveniently explosive enough to drive funding for more than a decade, after which time those studies proved more or less incorrect.
But hey, the "scientists" have excuses for that, too. Like they always do whenever they can't actually prove the incendiary, policy-deciding conclusions they've generated with their "science". And as expected, the real problem with aggressive peer review is the possibility that it might discredit the whole field - because yes, the pirates are petty enough to sink the ship.
This all mirrors the rampant dishonesty and corruption we've seen from every soft science over the last several years. From sociology to psychology to climate science, we've witnessed a steady march of activists scientists making insane claims based on fraudulent data that cannot be reproduced.
Then, when actual scientists challenge those claims, it's the same radical leftist excuses you see everywhere else: you're sexist for challenging researchers who happen to be women; you're hurting the credibility of "science" by checking questionable results; your findings are suspect because you're a straight white male.
The truth that very few people want to accept: STEM has fallen. It was converged just like any other institution, by a combination of radleft activists cooking the books and corporate and donor interests funding the revolution.
Perhaps? Is this your own guess, or do you have any data to back it up?
If psychology is any guide, a replication crisis doesn't prevent the "scientists" from continuing on their merry way and making all sorts of assertions not backed up by any facts.
So... it's based on nothing at all. Just as I thought.
Anecdote is not data, and it most certainly is not 'empiricism'.
"You go find the evidence for my claim" is the epitome of bullshit.
Don't drink water then.
He's not completely wrong. Marine Bio departments in universities will have a larger percentage of girls in the classes than other STEM fields from what I've seen as well. What he's ignoring though is that this is one of those fields where there are actually pretty few new jobs each year. He's extrapolating what happens in universities that are happy to take your cash for useless degrees and extrapolating that it affects who does the actual science which is where the argument falls apart.
https://i.imgur.com/LJm04bz.png
from:
https://datausa.io/profile/cip/marine-biology-biological-oceonography#demographics
dunno anything about the source but found it pretty easily.
there's also some feminist group of 'women in ocean science' that says they're raped in the workplace day in day out, but whaddaya gonna expect...
The original claim was that 'marine science' is dominated by women more than any other field of science. This only shows that, like biology in general, women are in the majority here.
He specifically made the claim about 'marine biology', and connected it to a cause which sounded quite absurd, dolphins. If other parts of biology are just as or even more female than marine biology, then the claim that marine biology is less rigorous because it's predominantly female is also shown to be false.
I asked for some evidence, which he was completely incapable of providing.
Yeah I would say social sciences, especially grievance studies are by far the most cucked.
See, normally I'd say "Let the science sort itself out" - but the issue is that this is precisely the opposite of what happens to the IPCC's results.
As soon as they've got anything that can be misrepresented as something to forward their political aims, it's all-in on the "muh science" bandwagon.
Anthropogenic Climate Change, is in fact, an existential threat due to it's inevitable effect on human systems.
That's precisely why the investigations should go forward.
This is the whine of "I fucking love science" style propagandist running into someone that actually demands a defense of your work. It took 40 years of Higgs' theories being tested before the Higgs-Boson particle could be proven to exist. The Scientific Establishment has a real problem sometimes with Science. Einstein refused to tolerate Quantum Mechanics. Millikan's Oil Drop experiment actually managed to practically prove that electrons had specific charges, and not a continuous stream; but he committed fraud to do it and stole a Nobel Prize from his grad student. I think the Fourier Series wasn't even accepted mathematics until the son of a bitch politically replaced committee members with his own friends who mathematically proved the validity of the series decades earlier.
Fuck your "public attitudes over the scientific debate". Stand on the fucking data and don't back down.
Unless your fucking lying.
Then resign out of disgrace.
No, it's not. Never was. Complete lie, just like the plandemic.
That's not what he's saying. He's saying that if it is in fact real, it is the greatest threat to humanity by a long shot.
So, in order to make sure it is in fact real, we should rigorously review every bit of data about it.
If you have a gun pointed at your head and some people are saying it's real while others say it's fake, it behooves you to be very sure which it is before you make any decisions regarding it.
Anyone trying to convince you not to double check the findings isn't actually concerned about the gun, they're concerned about their own agenda.
It's not real though. Eugenicists in the mid 20th century went straight into environmentalism. It's a big scam. It's flat earther level bullshit. I used to think that too, that "we better get this right just in case" and what I have found is there is no evidence at all that there is even the slightest concern. If you look at people studying science that make money from grants, you'll notice their research is only funded if they come to the "right" conclusions. If you say anything against the narrative - despite whatever evidence you may have - you will be shut down. Want to get paid? Fudge the results that climate alarmism is necessary. You atheists all don't seem to realize, if you don't believe in God you will be gullible enough to "believe in science", to "trust the experts". I care about the truth, and if so-called scientists are telling lies I call their bullshit out.
Yeah, man, we pretty much all know it's not real. That's not the point.
The point is that if someone claims the sky is falling but then tells you not to check to see if the sky is actually falling, then they're not actually concerned about it and are only concerned with manipulating you.
I have checked to see if the "sky is falling". It's not. Once you know the truth - that this climate hysteria is a hoax - everything makes more sense. Believing in climate change hysteria is basically a religion - it is based on faith, not science.
You're right, it isn't real. But these shitbags are using the fear they can stir up to implement what appears to be their preferred solution to anything - feudalism masquerading as socialism. And they keep producing shit science to fan the flames ever-higher - so let's cut 'em off at the knees and discredit the unworthy science they're producing/
Then a proper scientific analysis will bear that out.
That's asinine. Of course humans are altering atmospheric chemical concentrations, and of course that effects the climate, because it relates to an energy equation.
The pandemic is also a real pandemic, I don't know what else to tell you on that. Debate the deaths all you want, that's perfectly reasonable. But the virus itself is not a fiction.
Frankly, the reason they are hysterical is 2 fold:
The environmentalist movement is founded by literal god damned Nazis who were obsessed with the "soil" part of "Blood & Soil" (long discussion on what that actually meant to the Nazis and how that pertains to conservationism), and believed in Malthusian predictions of population collapse. All of the internationalist organizations can be thrown directly in the garbage for that.
The largest corporations in the world, particularly within agriculture, finance, and trade are facing a disaster because they will not be able to easily respond to climate changes, in the same way they control the world's monetary system since they can't respond to price changes. Climate Change is going to completely alter the environments of many continents and will result in a large movement of people. Maybe even the construction of new major cities (Canada in particular comes to mind), this means that the agricultural order of the world and it's commodity trading are going to be changed rather violently in the coming decades, and companies like Cargil are going to have to figure out how to adapt to how food is not going to be grown when, where, and how they want it to be. Worse, they might not even be able to grow what they want to, which is want the largest agricultural corporations rely on.
(continued) Farmers are always going to be the first people effected by Climactic change and any change that happens to them is going to effect food distribution to the rest of the country and every single thing that implies from political stability, economic well-being, public healthcare, population density, and much much more. Thanks to FDR's farm system, farmers are effectively dependent on share-cropping for the major Agricultural firms, and on federal subsidies to survive in such a highly regulated market that admits its sole purpose is to keep food prices extremely low. Probably lower than they even should be.
However, Climate Change means that the only proper solution to the oncoming problems to agriculture would be to radically de-regulate, well past the point of ending subsidies. This is a lethal threat to the largest corporations that depend on controlling agricultural commodity trading, and it also threatens establishment political loyalty over these regions. Farmers being allowed to adapt to Climate Change means increased food price volatility, worse: it means deflationary pressure on the major agricultural firms that will either have to eat the cost, force the farmers to take the hit, or force the consumer to offset the deflation with taxation. This means that:
From their perspective, it's only bad news. Look at it like this, Climate Change causing deflation on agriculture is like Caronavirus causing deflation on the stock markets: they chose options 2 & 3, put 46 million people out of work and hyperinflate the currency. The is already a catastrophe, and their hoping to barely scrape by with rampant fraud, a highly agitated population, and they've already lost the capitol once. Climate Change will do the same thing, but for food. That is why they are scared. You think the Boomer Riot at the capitol was bad? Try a Bread Riot. Or worse: a Water Riot.
what's the pretext of CO2?
The climate is a problem in the same way that this "pandemic" of a virus with a 99.99% survival rate is a problem. Climate exists, humans do contribute to some of the chemicals in the air, but climate change is about as lethal as the kung flu.
I'd say that that the pandemic has killed more people and is a much more serious problem in the short run. Climate Change will be a significant issue in the long run and it will have made significant alterations in our civilizaitonal systems.
Well, you already saw my other point about how Climate Change will effect the agricultural industry. As for the buying land, it's a similar thing. They don't give a shit about 100 years of Climate Change and the water encroaching on their beach front property over the next 5 decades. The houses are merely an investment vehicle. They plan to sell that shit, probably in 5-10 years.
The actual experts aren't loosing any bets on Climate Change. Look at the USGS increased flood risk maps. My area has a small increase in the flood plain. That's what you should continue to expect. The insurers aren't refusing to write policies because the USGS already told them what to expect. Yes, you can buy a house there. It's not going to sink into the ocean for 100 years.
I'd be more worried about a house near a river compared to a house on the beach. Yes the ocean will encroach over time, but due to increased water amounts, the course of the river is likely to change, and rivers can change rather quickly.
False. Stop believing lies you hear on fox news or cnn. Most deaths listed as covid deaths were not covid deaths. Climate change will never be a significant issue.
Most deaths? No, probably the majority of Covid deaths were caused by Covid. Yes the numbers were inflated, but not by a factor of two.
I love that the "debate" on CC goes on between two sides that have the IQ of a tadpole: "we're doomed" vs. "it's a hoax".
I miss the days when the concern was focused on more generic pollution like companies dumping industrial waste in the rivers and such. Now no one gives a shit about rivers of plastic and chemicals freely flowing all over Asia, but somehow the first world where that's mostly been heavily punished is the biggest worstest threat to the environment.
MUH PER CAPITA
never mind the fact that of course they're going to have a smaller number when you divide by 2 billion
Not quite. They have a smaller number because their economy is smaller. But population is not the relevant measurement there. It should be divided by GDP - because what you want is the greatest amount of production for the lowest amount of pollution. If you live in caves, you're not going to cause much pollution either.
The environmental cultists also never gave much of a damn about the extreme pollution taking place in the USSR. Funny how all these cultists never give a damn about what they purport to stand for, unless it's something they can burn down the west for.
I mean, 'We're doomed' has been repeated regularly over the last 50 years and has yet to manifest in any conceivable way, they just move to the next big lie. You can't blame some people for going 'It's a hoax, and will blow over the last six times.' when Chicken Little is still screaming his head off about it.
Yeah, we could stand to pollute less and conserve more, but I'll be damned if I ever take CC's data at face value.
It's a cult. If they actually believed that CC is an existential threat, they would be pushing nuclear power despite their misgivings. France mostly has nuclear power, and it is yet to blow up.
You're assuming they're rational.
Doomsayers has been the most powerful tool to control people. From religious prophecies to global warming. Power, control and wealth.
Betting against catastrophe is always a good idea, but conclusively asserting that it's a "hoax" with absolutely nothing to back it up is also pretty absurd.
We could always pollute less and 'conserve' more. The problem is that at the present, it's being pushed way past the point of vastly diminishing returns. But for most people, it's just a religion - putting plastic in a separate garbage bin is their good deed of the week.
There is not really a uniform set of 'data' that we can speak about. I think 'the data', such as it is, is valid to the extent that such models can be, but the presentation often is not. In newspapers, it often takes the most alarmistic scenarions, presents it as a certainty, and then ends up with people dismissing the whole thing as a hoax when the predictions turn out to be false, as always.
I would recommend Michael Shellenberger's book to anyone interested in the thing. Though I don't know whether he can be trusted either. That is part of the problem, all of this stuff is so inscrutable, and the 'experts' so morally and intellectually bankrupt, that one is forced to either believe politicized anarcho-primitivist 'experts' on one side, or those 'experts' funded by Exon (as the saying goes) on the other side, or into agnosticism. The fanaticism with which people advocate positions of which they have no clue at all whether they are correct, on both sides, is something that bothers me. At least have the balls to acknowledge that you don't know. As I don't.
Remember how we were supposed to be underwater in 12 years? The hole in the o-zone layer to destroy us all? Melting polar ice caps? There may have been some nuggets of truth hidden away in them, but frankly, calling them a hoax is being gentle. 'Directed lies to seize assets' would be closer to the truth.
Few arguments there, I was thinking more along the lines of all these stupid masks getting put into recycle bins and pushing for more items to be made from locally recycled material instead of cheap plastic from China.
Fair, I wasn't communicating clearly there. "Any information about CC published by mass media and/or that push for political control rather than targeted improvements" won't be taken at face value. If it shows up in a science magazine, it's a maybe. If it's a published paper, I'll at least humor the idea and see if it remains internally consistent. If it comes from a politician's or celebrity's lips, I would rather eat fresh vomit than accept it.
That said, I can't blame those that just go 'It's a hoax' still. Because after fifty years of Chicken Little screaming for attention, you either tune him out or you become the next Chicken Little.
No, alarmists have no nugget of truth to offer whatsoever. None of this nonsense was backed by "the scientific consensus" that they always brag about. It's mostly pushed by the media. and activists.
Depends on who you are talking about. The alarmists, that is correct, but that wouldn't make the whole thing a hoax.
The funny thing is that this will likely use up more resources than just importing them made from cheap plastic from China. Why that is 'sustainable', no one knows.
I agree with that, although I will say that science 'magazines' are generally propaganda outlets. What is semi-respectable is the science journals, but even they are being increasingly corruptetd by IDPol.
That is no more than common sense.
You can deny that it's caused by humans.
Yes, that is a very good reason to be skeptical of that - and any other 'crisis' pushed, which generally are completely bogus and advanced by people who want to increase their own power.
Midwits take things at face value. The wise see everything the way it actually is; in terms of narrative. The climate is always changing and human development has negligible effects. The narrative behind it is like all other narratives propogated by the Globo Homo elites, to grab more power.
Do tell me by what standard one can tell if someone belongs to 'the wise'.
[weasel words enter the conversation]
What is 'negligible'? I don't agree that CC is existential, but it's definitely not negligible either.
It is negligible. Whether it's wet or dry or hot or cold all weather conditions are always blamed on climate change. The weather channel freaks out if there's a below average hurricane season (climate change reducing hurricanes), an average hurricane season (climate change causes hurricanes) or an above average hurricane season (climate change is causing more hurricanes), and this is the narrative all the time from all institutions. The reason this is pushed, is so the globo homo elites can cripple the people by depriving them of the only cheap reliable source of energy - fossil fuels (how many times have you heard of goals of reaching "carbon nuetral?". Carbon Dioxide is not harmful to the environment at all. It is like saying water is harmful for fish... Look up the Club of Rome. This all is a bogus hoax and has been for a long time.
That has no bearing on the validity of the original thing.
That is certainly a reason why it's exaggerated and there is so much alarmism. It doesn't invalidate the original thing though, same for the virus whose existence you also deny.
You didn't explain how one determines that someone is a member of 'the wise'.
And you're the enlightened cuck right?
you raise two interesting yet conflicting points
vs
any study that shows anthropogenic climate change is always based on bs statistics manipulation. go into into the papers, examine them. how many times were we supposed to have global environmental collapse already? didnt al gore promise 2008 as doomsday the first time? then 2012, then 2020. nope we still here.
any climate change paper is filled with bogus stats and moving goal posts
No, but it is going to have to be based on statistical abstraction and possible knock-on effects if you're not studying localized effects for specific areas. Beneficial effects like the warming of northern Canada which may make it more habitable for multiple species including human expansion and development, and harmful effects like the salinization of the Falkland's Islands aquifer which would prevent any practical human occupation of the Island.
Yes.
None.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. I had a Environmental Sciences class where we literally watched the movie and tore apart all the mistakes in it. He was pushing alarmism that the Science isn't actually alleging.
Any good climate paper is sufficiently detailed in chemistry to make it a bit hard to read. If you don't see error bars, throw it away, it's not science.
That's part of the issue here. The actual, detailed, scientific investigation is utterly unrelated to the morons in the media and watermellon communists.
dont forget melted to death by acid rain
Don't forget Galileo, who was willing to get imprisoned rather than meekly accept the consensus (though he did need quite some time to work up to it, perhaps not surprising given that this was the entire weight of the inquisition he was facing)
Grow a fucking backbone and defend your work. You're right - this is important, and it's important we get it right.
This is why saying "my truth" should get you expelled from schools.
Fuck your truth, we want the truth.
The Galileo story is even funnier when you consider that the Church damn well knew that heliocentrism was probably "scientifically" correct, since they were already using that model to figure out Easter (Copernicus explained the precession of Mars better, and his model was more accurate than Ptolemy's).
It was the usual suspects, the Unwashed Masses who thought the Earth was flat and the centre of the universe. The Church apparently wanted to spread the news their own way - ie, to "control the narrative" so that the herd wouldn't be ... spooked, or whatever happens when universe-changing information comes along. Galileo was jumping the gun, and the Church didn't trust the People not to lose their nuts over the news.
Basically
Climate Change is just another arm of the female supremacists. Did you miss when Greta said it was patriarchy's fault?
It's not a real issue and anyone who thinks it is, is crazy.
I don't listen to retards
If that brainless and soon-to-be-transgendered puppet Greta said that eating your own shit is patriarchy, would you be feasting on your own excrement?
What a weird thing to say.
Also, what's your basis that she will be trans soon?
Not really. "This is false because X believes it" is a classic ad hominem and quite ridiculous. Thunberg may have any number of notions that are not false. Nor do her beliefs invalidate the science that is out there, just as exaggerations by other alarmists do not invalidate it.
No one is 'trans', and no one ever will be. More like, she will put on a baseball cap and falsely assert that she is a man.
Why? Her parents can milk this 'climate change' thing for only so long, for attention. They will need some novelty in order to keep attention. Besides, she's autistic, and therefore ripe material for being recruited to the cult.
I don't agree, but I do agree that it's vastly exaggerated. Hence the "that is out there", as opposed to The Science(tm) which they continually scream about, despite knowing next to nothing about i.
Well, I pretty much live by the idea that everything feminists say or do is the opposite of a good thing.
Fair point, but I can't see it. She'd lose what little credibility she has from that, as well as become a lot less interesting to leftists, because she's technically a white male now.
Are you kidding me? She had no credibility. But if she puts on a baseball cap, then she is suddenly the Most Oppressioned Class, and untouchable.
Science is totally fucked.
Ideologically, this has been true for a long time. Anthropology, sociology, psychology are useless fields basically because of ideology alone.
But now it's not even just ideologically fucked though. It has ossified into an uncheckable cabal.
I know there are people who don't like the IDW people, but Bret Weinstein's 'we've artifically evolved lab mice to have long telomeres* making them useless for the research we use them for' story should be standard knowledge. Science, including medical science, is fucked. The replication crisis has hit medical science just as hard, or harder, than it has hit other science. Takeaway: Don't take drugs or use products until they've been used by human beings for a significant period of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ve4q-1D_Ajo
A pure pragmaticism must now be taken. Can't assume ANYTHING is safe based on 'science'. Bridges, drugs, anything. Must wait for lengthy human testing.
*making their cell-repair/reproduction extreme, and their baseline cancer rates very high, masking toxicities in drugs, underplaying the effects of radiation.
For the longest time, the global warmers engaged in disappearing weather station fraud. More northern weather stations would mysteriously disappear from the data, making the averages seem warmer. Then NASA came out with some satellites, and the human factor in measuring temperature disappeared and with it the supposed warming trend came to a screeching halt. They learned their lesson, and so now their focus has been on the ocean, and more specifically deep ocean temperatures. But the thing is, once again, that requires a large presence of the human factor. Leaves lots of room for data they read, data that they selectively don't choose to include.
Anyhow, all the researchers have gotten the message. Do ocean fraud, or don't get funding. It's that simple.
To be fair, I would say that some of the disappearing weather stations did "disappear", as some of them were just military outposts that are now abandoned strung along the DEW Line, like CFB Alert. The end of the Cold War and advancing technology made the DEW Line obsolete. Totally remote stations would be a more modern thing, I should think, and there likely wouldn't be as many as there used to be military outposts.
But it would be VERY dishonest for anyone arguing for or against "climate change" to ignore that phenomenon.
There's also a second problem with weather stations: A lot of them were originally built in forested and green areas, either in large parks or just outside cities, and over time their surroundings changed, so a weather station that used to be in the middle of a forest is now surrounded by concrete shopping malls and paved parking lots. Nobody seems to want to take that into account.
We are sleepwalking into decade's of lockdowns and its not covid its climate change hoax. Posted that last march. Now we watch what I said come true.
I also said years ago about being charged for oxygen. Just wait and see
In some form they will sell medication oxygen we breathe doesn't kill us. They will teach kids the ait is prison and with out taking medication we will all die or such. I'm not sure how but I know it's coming
Being downvoted for what is and has actually been a thing in china and korea for decades now. XD
Oh, if you 'know' it, that settles it.
We really need a record of predictions, because people say the most absurd things and then run away when their predictions don't pan out.
Nobody will abide by those. Covid worked because it scared people.
You can get covid. You can be the unlucky one who gets a bad case of it. Therefore you're scared enough to stay inside.
Climate change doesn't have that immediate consequence, therefore nobody in their right mind will obey climate lockdowns and anyone who suggests them after what 2020 was to most people will regret it.
The world has been under house arrest for a year.
We will do what we are told. If you think people will make a stand your 100% wrong. This is all planed out buy people way smarter than us.
The normal people will be taxed out of cars, plains and meats first. It's already happened with plains. Dude sorry to tell you but in correct
Like I said, Covid worked for that, because the consequences were immediate.
People won't make a stand, it won't be necessary. The mere suggestion of a climate lockdown would be political suicide, 2020 will never repeat again.
I must have missed that, flights are still cheap as fuck, there's just nowhere to go that would be any good.
Gotta disagree with this.
Wealthier, better-connected, more powerful, yes. Smarter, no.
Your fooling yourself.
You are absolutely right here. This is also why I was so confident about that 'curfew for men' that you were panicking about a while back.
They are already suggesting it, but they will be a mad voice in the wilderness.
Tweeting that should be grounds for immediate review of anything significant they have ever published. No-one with an ounce of integrity or grey matter thinks replication studies' point is to "harm other scientists", they help other honest scientists not waste months of their time chasing fabricated red herrings that have been published unquestioned.
Also that internal misconduct review recommending no further action is a fucking joke.
Yeah, sure, all the raw data happened to be on just one laptop that just happened to be stolen and that's why they can't produce the data now. That doesn't warrant further investigation at all! The 3 professors who did that review also need to get busted down to lab aides.
Universities need to clean fucking house before enough honest scientists band together to do far worse public damage their reputation than this article hand wrings about.
We should make PhDs have to replicate a study (and start the process of replicating a long term study) before they're allowed to publish anything of their own.
And once you do publish, you shouldn't be able to cite anything that hasn't been replicated at least twice.
"Climate change is caused by the systems of patriarchy" ~ Greta Thunberg.
Climate cult can go away already, the mask fell years ago.
Ahahahahaha. Women doing “science”.
That's literally your fucking job, goddamn.
Reminds me of the hate crime hoaxer, learning the police could trace who used the school printer to track who were the suspects producing the "hate material".
see this is when you know they are a cult when they create a conclusion and try to force things in to it rather than letting the evidence decide things.
This makes me want to make a career out of replicating research.
Wouldn't be a bad idea if you could manage to get the funding for it.
Getting funding commensurate with the funding available to scientists willing to "prove" a predetermined finding will be difficult, even more so when there is not even a possibility of producing anything novel with the money. It would only make sense as an investment for entities with an interest in the success of scientific research as a whole, but the places that dole out that kind of blue-sky research money also tend to be the most sensitive about damaging the reputation of the academy currently. They'll only be interested in it once the reputation is already ruined and it makes sense as a way to rebuild that reputation.
But beyond that, anyone trying to make the academy actually earn it's position as ultimate arbiter of truth is going to get the full force of rigourous interrogation into their work that everyone else is missing out on. So to be successful they will also need to be one of the most widely read and competent investigators in their field too.
What's to stop someone doing it privately and just, well copying experiments? A place to publish?
A place to publish, a way to actually get it into a scientific discussion, the fact that they won't secure any funding for the research from state funds, and there isn't much desire in the way of private funds to pay for it.
Apparently now correcting a falsehood is harmful to “science”.
Critisism is violence.
Climate is defined as Longweather. The Romans had it warmer, I figure, when I see their short skirts. Did they complain about the longweather? Could meltdown make the Sahara green again? Q everything!
Title is very misleading. What has been demonstrated so far is a failure to replicate. It could mean that the first study was erroneous, or the second one, or that either one was a fraud. Fraud is one of the possibilities, not a definitive fact.
Interestingly, there is actual fraud mentioned here, but it's not the main story.
One of the scientists managed to avoid the Gellman Amnesia effect:
The story details the earlier fraud as a parallel.
The fraud hasn't been proven because the academy apparently accepts "I'm a woman who made an honest mistake manually copying data into excel" as an excuse for obvious fraud.
Sounds like that entire department/university should be viewed with suspicion and probably entirely defunded.
That would be much easier to do if universities were funded by consent rather than violence.