Tuesday, February 7, 2012

Suggested reading for Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al


Science 2 December 2011: 
Vol. 334 no. 6060 p. 1182 
DOI: 10.1126/science.1216775
  • EDITORIAL

Addressing Scientific Fraud

  1. Jennifer Crocker1
  2. M. Lynne Cooper2
  1. 1Jennifer Crocker is Ohio Eminent Scholar in Social Psychology at the Ohio State University, past president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, and chair of the Publications and Communications Board of the American Psychological Association.
  2. 2M. Lynne Cooper is Curators' Distinguished Professor at the University of Missouri, co-chair of the Board of Scientific Affairs of the American Psychological Association, associate editor of American Psychologist, and former editor-in-chief of the Journal of Research in Personality.
An interim report released in October 2011 by Tilburg University, Netherlands, concluded that one of its faculty members, social psychologist Diederik Stapel, fabricated data for numerous studies conducted over a period of 15 to 20 years.* The good news, of course, is that the fraud was eventually uncovered. The bad news is that it went undetected for so long and involved so many scientific articles—over 100 publications are now under investigation. The costs of the fraud for the careers of young scientists and others who worked with him, for science, and for public trust in science are devastating. As the investigation unfolds, the moment is opportune to reflect on what can be done to protect science and the public from fraud in the future.

2 comments:

  1. "I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done."

    James Lovelock
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/mar/29/james-lovelock/print

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here is a simple proof in 10 easy steps why the Greenhouse Effect is a physical impossibility.

    (1) The IPCC claim that radiation from a cooler atmosphere slows the rate of cooling of the (warmer) surface, thus leading to a greenhouse effect.

    (2) The "rate of cooling" is a 24 hour worldwide mean, so wherever the Sun is warming the surface (any sunny morning) the rate of warming would have to be increased by whatever process is slowing the rate of cooling.

    (3) Thus extra thermal energy must be added to the surface by such radiation in order to increase the warming rate in the morning and slow the mean rate of cooling calculated from both day and night rates.

    (4) Now the Second Law of Thermodynamics relates to heat transfer which is not the same as energy transfer. Radiated energy can be two-way, but heat transfer between two points is always one way and it is invalid to split such heat transfer into two opposite components and try to apply the Second Law to each. Physics doesn't work that way.

    (5) Hence, the surface cannot warm faster in the mornings due to such an imaginary heat transfer, because that would be clearly breaking the Second Law no matter what. Nor can it slow the rate of cooling because of (4). And in general you would expect the same process to happen whether the surface is warming or cooling.

    (6) So, those photons from the cooler atmosphere are not being converted to thermal energy in the warmer surface, as Prof Claes Johnson proved in Computational Blackbody Radiation.

    (7) Hence the effect of the photons being either reflected or scattered is that there is no impact on the surface at all.

    (8) It is also clear that there is no significant transfer by diffusion or conduction from the atmosphere to the surface because the surface absorbs more solar insolation than the lower atmosphere, and we observe that the atmosphere is generally cooler and even cools faster at night than the surface.

    (9) So it really does not matter even if extra thermal energy is trapped higher up in the atmosphere because it does not affect what we call climate, and any such energy cannot make its way back to the surface, except possibly an insignificant additional amount in precipitation.

    (10) Hence there is no valid physical way in which backradiation or absorption by carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause a significant atmospheric greenhouse effect.

    If I haven't convinced you, read this paper Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    Doug Cotton
    http://climate-change-theory.com

    ReplyDelete