Should climate scientists be worried?

Question

I had previously read an interesting study in the field of psychology which I felt could apply to any science that uses data and statistics. The study is: "False-Positive Psychology: Undisclosed Flexibility in Data Collection and Analysis Allows Presenting Anything as Significant" http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1850704

From the abstract: "We present computer simulations and a pair of actual experiments that demonstrate how unacceptably easy it is to accumulate (and report) statistically significant evidence for a false hypothesis."

What peaked my interest this week is a report about one of the authors of that study, Uri Simonsohn. He is apparently an expert in this area and has developed a statistical method to detect data fraud. He has used this to expose several papers in psychology where data was used to create false positives to support a hypothesis: http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/07/fraud-detection-tool-could-shake.html?ref=hp

The interesting part is that Simonsohn intends to publish his statistical method for detecting this type of data misconduct. It may very well apply to all science which uses data and statistics to support scientific hypothesis through published and peer-reviewed studies. From sciencemag article: "If it proves valid, Simonsohn’s technique might find other possible cases of misconduct lurking in the vast body of scientific literature."

How might climate science be affected by this?

Answer 1

YOU should be a lot more worried that climate scientists, except that you keep pushing the same antiscientist party line in spite of consistent contrary evidence - such as actual quotes from people you deliberately misquote.



. The statistics of single studies, in psychology usually at the 95% confidence level and involving a few hundred or fewer data points, are considerably different from worldwide data collection by multiple researchers in multiple disciplines involving literally millions of observations.



To directly answer your question - climate science won't be affected by this. I offer as proof the continued and futile attempts by a large denier community to show fraud or misfeasance on the part of any climate scientist.



BTW - it's "piqued"

Answer 2

Global warming is happening, an observant person does not even need science to tell him/her that it is, as we can see the glaciers retreating and the North pole melting. We also know that CO2 does alter the heat retention capacities of the atmosphere and that mankind is pumping tons and tons of CO2 from fossil fuels back into the atmosphere.



Is it really that difficult to accept that mankind does influence the global temperatures?? By all means go and read that paper when it is published and then have a good look in the mirror, I know I will.

Answer 3

Well lets see. The past week in the ohio river valley saw an anticyclone that generated heat of over 105 degrees (the hottest in decades), while simultaneously HAILING. As in, it was over 100 degrees at the same time hail was falling. And then there was that ridiculously gigantic derecho that shot across a huge portion of the country.



Oh yeah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:6-29-2012_Derecho.jpg They must be terrified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:June-2012-North-American-derecho-lightning-strike.gif Horrified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SPC_Severe_weather_reports_20120629.png scared!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DangerousShelfCloud.jpg Cowering!



Oh wait HOLY S*%* thats a horrible line of death that had hail and over 100 degree temperatures at the same time and just ripped through part of the country after a weak of severe storms and unprecedented heat!



But then last year it snowed in scandanavia in the winter. So I guess they're all just darn liars huh?

Answer 4

Worried about what?



Well, worried about what, other than global warming?



Because, global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/warmingindicators.jpg

And we are causing it

http://planetsave.com/2010/08/18/humans-cause-global-warming-10-indicators/



The ten warmest years in the instrumental record are 2010, 2005, 2009, 2007, 2002, 1998, 2006, 2003, 2004 and 2011.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/



But, if a fraud detection tool could be brought to climatology, bring it on. I expect a lot of noise from Faux News, until the results are published. Then I expect to hear a deafening silence; or claims of a whitewash.



PQ







So, you are willing to let people die just to keep a few dollars in your pants. With values like that, you should find a job with the Mafia as a hit man. I hear they are hiring.

Answer 5

The only psychological aspect of your whole fake question is how again you try to feign sincere interest after you read yet another denier blog-post bashing science (as accurately described by full-time skeptic HeyDook). You do not tell your audience where you got that story (deception) thereby giving the false impression that you are a knowledgeable person who regularly reads a wide array of scientific literature from many different fields.



I think you are suffering from "pseudologia fantastica" aka "pathological lying". An excerpt from Wikipedia:



"The defining characteristics of pseudologia fantastica are:



1. The stories told are not entirely improbable and often have some element of truth. They are not a manifestation of delusion or some broader type of psychosis: upon confrontation, the teller can admit them to be untrue, even if unwillingly.

2. The fabricative tendency is long lasting; it is not provoked by the immediate situation or social pressure as much as it is an innate trait of the personality.

..

4. The stories told tend toward presenting the liar favorably. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, knowing or being related to many famous people." (1)



All 3 characteristics above (I've left out #3 on the motive for the behavior) are present in your long list of fake questions here on YA. Time and time again your fake questions are exposed here yet you continue posting them. You either have a severe psychological disorder, one possibly related with that of pathological liars, or you get some other kind of gratification (ie financial!) from posting your anti-climate science BS here while feigning some sort of legitimate interest and superior knowledge.

Answer 6

Quote by George Kukla, climatologist, research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University: "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid."



These are not my words but words of one of the established peers.



Did I get that right? Gringo just called Hey Dork a skeptic and a full time one at that?



Isn't it intellectually stimulating to see these warmies grunt, groan and strain at the real scientists questions. They never answer a question they attack either you or your sources and call you or your sources names. Then sometimes they utter something somewhat scientific but it would make a high school sophomore laugh. Name calling is always the last defense of the lame.

Answer 7

lobal warming is happening, an observant person does not even need science to tell him/her that it is, as we can see the glaciers retreating and the North pole melting. Industrial Development are very effected by the world. People are no changes mind. All Jungle are deforestation.

Answer 8

Once again a DA question by a DA denier. Your question has nothing to do with actual climate science or global warming. it is simply more BS so you can express your opinion and a disservice to this forum (speaking of misconduct).



I can only hope someone designs a roach motel big enough for you.

Answer 9

Brilliant - nail on head.

Answer 10

I always find it just a little funny that deniers are constantly tell us that computer models don't work yet see not problem presenting computer models (simulations) when they are trying to make points, welcome to the wonderful world of denial.

As you bring psychology to the table, people are making careers out of the study of denial, are you sure this is a can of worms you really want to open.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1407958

Answer 11

How might climate science be affected by this?



Not at all. You are up to your old BS tricks again, MIke. Laughably pretending that you are reading widely in fields such as psychoglogy, when in fact you simply lifted this cherry-picked croc from some denier blog such as climateaudit.org where this same anti-science deceit you are recycling already appeared this week:

http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/01/lonnie-and-ellen-serial-non-archivers/



The lies of anti-science deniers are a dime a dozen. Climate scientists cannot possibly pay attention to every piece of excrement in that sewer. THEY have day jobs!



I would revise the following slightly if Antarctice, Trevor, Pegminer or some credible climate scientist were to dissent, but it seems highly likely, at least, that if you were to completely discard every climate model ever made, the scientific consensus on AGW based on a century of massive empirical observation and analysis would not change one whit:



U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”



http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-08/#feature



You insult our intelligence, Mike, if you think we cannot google and uncover your cheap trickery.

..........

Answer 12

I doubt they will be worried. They quite openly adjust temperature data to fit their hypothesis and as the whitewash of the climategate emails, they can get away with ANYTHING.

Answer 13

Always a hoot to see some academic egghead discover something the rest of us have know for decades.



Warmon math was not invented by Warmons,

Scam Artists have been with us since time began.



Should Climate Scientists be worried? Good God no.

Suckers have been with us since time began too.



Do you think these people are about to catch on anytime soon?

dihydrogen monoxide petition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi3erdgVVTw



Your average Obama voter is SUPPRISED to learn that giving free healthcare to 30 million people will require a tax hike. Supprised. Not concerned, Supprised.



No Seriously, they are Supprised.

Answer 14

I think they should be worried. This technique could easily uncover the fraud and collusion that is obvious among the alarmist listerature.

Answer 15

EDIT: For some one who proclaims to put little faith in the soft science, Mike, you sure do refer to Psychology quite a bit.

Answer 16

The word is "piqued."