Stan Young saw and sent me this article by Freedman in PLOS Biology on the consequences of unreproducible (bad) biological research.
Stan’s note (Stan is a PhD in Stats and Genetics):
Where experiments are run and the researcher can control everything,
well over 50% of claims fail to replicate. Environmental epidemiology
has to be much worse as nothing is controlled and the researcher usually
has an agenda and an eye on funding. They get the answer they want, they
publish. They don’t get the answer they want, they simply don’t publish.
It has a name, publication bias. In the medical world researchers have
to register their trials. You can count failed studies. In the epi world
you just move on.
Freedman et al. say bad science is very expensive. Well bad epi is much
worse as it is not the cost of the research, but the cost of the
corrective action that is so expensive.
I would agree.
The important thing to consider in a world of leftist bullshitters, is they don’t really care if they are right or wrong, truthful or not–they are posing as concerned and superior, so evidence and truth is not important.
The reason that social science studies are so junky is obvious–they are often loaded up with political agendas, driven by intellectual passion and the beneficiaries of journal editor publication bias and a desire to be covered by the mainstream press.
Psych and other social science journals are easy on authors and accepting of their papers if they are writing about what the lefty psych community wants to promote as reality.
Methodology and scientific integrity give way in the social sciences research community to consensus political agendas and confirmation/tunnel vision bias in the service of the “consensus.”
J Scott Armstrong, professor at The Wharton School of the U of Penn, has made a career of being an expert on modeling for good predictive accuracy.
I have put his essays up favorably recently because he has adopted the outline as presented by this less authoritative or lesser known writer. Scott warns don’t get too far away from reality, and study your subject carefully.
Indeed that is good advice–so why can’t the IPCC modeling community listen to common sense?
Because they need to push the agenda and get that treaty in Gay Paree.
Their was at one time a big myth, supposedly proved by good “research” that Type A personalities get heart attacks, aggressive hard workers with short tempers get what they deserve. Let’s all do Yoga and repeat our mantra to ourselves.
It was debunked. Continue reading
John Graham’s well regarded paper on the problems of EPA research is linked below.
Posted in Climate Change, climate science, Economics, Environmentalism, EPA, Junk scientists, Methodology, Researcher Misconduct, Risk assessment, Scientific method, scientific misconduct, Uncategorized
Tagged weather extremes