Debunking the Climate Scam
Billions of Dollars -
Greedy Green Corporations -
No Warming For Two decades -
Bought and Paid For Organizations
5000 Years Of Climate Change From Greenland Ice Cores
Debuking Peer Review
Note that several of these articles are from top quality journals
Classical peer review: an empty gun
If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association .....Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.
Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors
"Mistakes in peer-
Why we can't trust academic journals to tell the scientific truth
"Academic journals don't select the research they publish on scientific rigour alone. So why aren't academics taking to the streets about this?"
VERY GOOD -
New Study: Most Economics Research Papers Are Wrong
Nearly 80% of the reported effects in these empirical economics literatures are exaggerated;
typically, by a factor of two and with one-
Peer review: Troubled from the start
"Referees are overworked. The problem of bias is intractable. The referee system has broken down and become an obstacle to scientific progress. Traditional refereeing is an antiquated form that might have been good for science in the past but it's high time to put it out of its misery."
Scientific peer review: an ineffective and unworthy institution
The thing is, the peer review of scientific reports is not only without documented value in advancing the scientific enterprise but, in a manner that few care to acknowledge openly, primarily serves ends that are less than noble. Peer review is widely assumed to provide an imprimatur of scientific quality (and significance) for a publication, but this is clearly not the case.
Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data?
"The survey — of 215 UK academics — estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data. Here’s how Joanna Williams and David Roberts at the University of Kent summarize the results in their full report, published by the Society for Research into Higher Education:"
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”
Stop ignoring misconduct
"Efforts to reduce irreproducibility in research must also tackle the temptation to cheat, argue Donald S. Kornfeld and Sandra L. Titus."
"Science isn’t self-
Evolutionary forces are causing a boom in bad science
"Call it a crisis. Researchers are finding it harder to replicate each other’s findings, while the rate of retractions of published studies is rapidly rising. But why is this happening?"
The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists
"Today, scientists’ success often isn’t measured by the quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It’s instead measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public."
Lying scientists and the lying lies they tell
"When you read academic papers, you aren't looking for treachery and deceit behind the stolid prose. Don't be so trusting: universities can be a wretched hive of scum and villainy. "
Second retraction for researcher who faked 70+ experiments
"Journal of Biological ChemistryTwo researchers found to have faked data by the U.S.
Office of Research Integrity (ORI) have lost a paper that they co-
Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183
"Keeping up with the various investigations into the activities of Yoshitaka Fujii — the assumed record holder for retractions by a single author, with 172 likely — can be a challenge. Between the journals pulling his papers and the institutions looking into his misconduct, it’s hard to keep everything straight"
Researcher who sued to stop retractions earns his 7th
"A diabetes researcher who sued to stop a publisher from retracting his papers has just received his seventh retraction."
The Retraction Watch Leaderboard
"Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light:"
1st retraction for cancer researcher who doctored data in 11 studies
"A cancer journal has retracted a paper co-
Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review
"BioMed Central, the UK based publisher of 277 medical and scientific journals, has
retracted 43 papers “because the peer-
The Case of the Amazing Gay-
"Instead, he took a preexisting dataset, pawned it off as his own, and faked the persuasion “effects” of the canvassing. It’s the sort of brazen data fraud you just don’t see that often, especially in a journal like Science. "
Journal Retracts 1998 Paper Linking Autism to Vaccines
Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List
"Many retractions barely register outside of the scientific field. But in some instances, the studies that were clawed back made major waves in societal discussions of the issues they dealt with. This list recounts some prominent retractions that have occurred since 1980."
WSJ editorializes on posturing by Science Mag
"As you know, the LaCour fake research published in Science is another example of the junk science and politically motivated published material that appears in Science."
Science, Now Under Scrutiny Itself
"The crimes and misdemeanors of science used to be handled mostly in-
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data
"When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues."
The Augean stables
A group of researchers recently looked at 55 large clinical studies funded by the NHLBI between 1970 and 2012 to see if the transparency rules had made any difference. What they found should shake the foundations of medical research…but it almost certainly won’t:
57% of studies (17/30) published before 2000 showed a significant benefit in the primary outcome
8% (2/25 trials published after 2000 showed a significant benefit in the primary outcome
|Past Was Warmer|
|NASA: 30's Hotter|
|CRU Emails - html formatted|
|CRU Emails Simple Format|
|CRU Emails UnFormatted|
|Hockey Stick Links|