How the scientific process works

[drtom2005]

A little posting about how scientists think about the scientific process.
Notice how the scientists always attempt to admit his/her bias.
Please read the whole posting before commenting. I will continue to post topics on the scientific process.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...1/gen01226.htm

Below this is an example of a scientist who fabricated his data. Other scientists exposed him in the peer-review process.

http://www.slate.com/id/2132541/

If the "climategate" scientist did any wrong, he will be cited. He will lose funding. His data will be overlooked for the rest of his career.

These are the consequences of lying/fabricating data. You can not get a job and can not get research funding.

According to some, all of the scientists in all of the different fields on global warming are lying, because of one data set being called into question. Wow, how naive.

[OnePimpTiger]

According to some, all of the scientists in all of the different fields on global warming are lying, because of one data set being called into question. Wow, how naive.

Actually, at least 18 different data sets, models, assertions, etc have been called into question. You really only believe what you choose to.

You are right about one thing, peer reviews are set up to catch errors and misrepresentations...which is what some of the problems arise from, they weren't peer-reviewed as they were supposed to be.

[drtom2005]

Actually, at least 18 different data sets, models, assertions, etc have been called into question. You really only believe what you choose to.

You are right about one thing, peer reviews are set up to catch errors and misrepresentations...which is what some of the problems arise from, they weren't peer-reviewed as they were supposed to be.

OPT I do not have the time debunk all your hyperbole on the climate data. I found out that the "Climategate" issue has been resolved and the scientist has been reviewed. It took me 2 minutes. Do you really want me to go throghg all those over time and see the real issue?

I will make a post as all of the scientists get cleared or cited. Of course, you do not think the governing board which cleared the scientist in the above conspiracy theory did the right thing. You think there is a bunch of scientists getting together to manipulate data for a political gain.

[OnePimpTiger]

OPT I do not have the time debunk all your hyperbole on the climate data. I found out that the "Climategate" issue has been resolved and the scientist has been reviewed. It took me 2 minutes. Do you really want me to go throghg all those over time and see the real issue?

I will make a post as all of the scientists get cleared or cited. Of course, you do not think the governing board which cleared the scientist in the above conspiracy theory did the right thing. You think there is a bunch of scientists getting together to manipulate data for a political gain.

All of my hyperbole? You still never cease to amaze me. If you had read any of the links I posted, you would see it's scientists who are finding and exposing these errors and lies. Did you think I was making all of this up on my own?

Yes, Michael Mann was cleared by the Penn State University review...ie the same place where Mann happened to be employed. That's a lot like Enron conducting their own investigation and saying their executives did nothing wrong. But anyway, they did clear him, but the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." So basically, they couldn't find that he did anything wrong, but suggested that further investigation is needed. He sounds spotless.

And no, I don't expect you to actually look into anything that would challenge your opinion...that would be considering all available information and we know how you feel about that.

A simple question: Much of the raw temperature data that the formula was applied to was subsequently thrown away, never to be available again for review or proof...is that proper science?

[OnePimpTiger]

I love your link by the way. We'll ignore the first rule the first answer posted, I guess proper grammar technically has no bearing on actual science...although I would expect any educated person to catch that:

1. Requires a appreciation of existing data on the subject -- a search of
the literature.
2. Requires a carefully thought-out plan of attack (the experiment/s) and a
logical, dispassionate assessment of information gathered (the data).
3. Requires detailed and careful record-keeping.
4. Requires a willingness to start over -- tenacity in the face of failures.
5. Requires an open mind and a willingness to change one's mind in light of
new evidence.

Requires detailed and careful record keeping...like throwing away raw data? And that #5 must be a killer for you.

I found a nice little explanation of the scientific method as well:

Key Info

* The scientific method is a way to ask and answer scientific questions by making observations and doing experiments.
* The steps of the scientific method are to:
o Ask a Question
o Do Background Research
o Construct a Hypothesis
o Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
o Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
o Communicate Your Results
* It is important for your experiment to be a fair test. A "fair test" occurs when you change only one factor (variable) and keep all other conditions the same.

I don't see anything about placing anecdotal evidence from mountain climbers in "scientific" reports. Or keeping data and methods secret. Or intentionally exaggerating claims to prod governments into action. Or stating multiple "facts" and predictions and citing multiple studies that have not been peer reviewed in major "scientific" papers. Or pretending you don't know about contrary evidence prior to a major summit and then lie about it later. Or misquoting another scientist's hard work to support your claims. Or omitting some data that might not give you the desired results. All of these have already been proven in "global warming" research. The fact that you choose to deny them doesn't make them go away.

[mikesilvia]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only ones making billions and asking for trillions of dollars are the "humans are causing global warming" scientists. The scientific data needs to be 100% accurate for them to even begin to ask for any money. The scientists that are debunking these crooks are actually LOSING money by doing so and likely being black listed in the community. But I'm sure that happened to the guys that said the world was round when they were in the minority.

[JeRmZ]

you think there is a bunch of scientists getting together to manipulate data for a political gain.

bing bing bing, winner winner chicken dinner!!!!!!!!

[drtom2005]

All of my hyperbole? You still never cease to amaze me. If you had read any of the links I posted, you would see it's scientists who are finding and exposing these errors and lies. Did you think I was making all of this up on my own?

Yes, Michael Mann was cleared by the Penn State University review...ie the same place where Mann happened to be employed. That's a lot like Enron conducting their own investigation and saying their executives did nothing wrong. But anyway, they did clear him, but the university did find "further investigation is warranted" to determine whether Mann engaged in actions that "seriously deviated from accepted practices for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities." So basically, they couldn't find that he did anything wrong, but suggested that further investigation is needed. He sounds spotless.

And no, I don't expect you to actually look into anything that would challenge your opinion...that would be considering all available information and we know how you feel about that.

A simple question: Much of the raw temperature data that the formula was applied to was subsequently thrown away, never to be available again for review or proof...is that proper science?

OPt as I have repeat many times before. You have a point about possibly manipulation the weather and only weather data. Nothing else.

Please provide the opposing hypothesis and their data for climate change.
Anytime I ask you post articles which you apparently do not read closely. Hence, the coral bleaching article.

I have come to the conclusion that you believe in conspiracy theories.

I will no longer response to your conspiracy theories. If you have a legimate post, I will read it. By the way, as more articles come out on only the weather data, I will continue to read them and post them. Of course you only read the ones that agree with you.

[OnePimpTiger]

OPt as I have repeat many times before. You have a point about possibly manipulation the weather and only weather data. Nothing else.

Please provide the opposing hypothesis and their data for climate change.
Anytime I ask you post articles which you apparently do not read closely. Hence, the coral bleaching article.

I have come to the conclusion that you believe in conspiracy theories.

I will no longer response to your conspiracy theories. If you have a legimate post, I will read it. By the way, as more articles come out on only the weather data, I will continue to read them and post them. Of course you only read the ones that agree with you.

That's exactly right. You see anything you disagree with as a conspiracy theory. You can ignore true science if you choose, you've proven you're very good at it. And you'll fit right in with the "global warming" crowd...and you might even get rich off it, they certainly are.

[drtom2005]

That's exactly right. You see anything you disagree with as a conspiracy theory. You can ignore true science if you choose, you've proven you're very good at it. And you'll fit right in with the "global warming" crowd...and you might even get rich off it, they certainly are.

OPT, here is your logic.

Your disbelief in this matter is a conspiracy theory because you are going against what most scientists say.

Let us look up the definition.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...spiracy+theory

You are saying that a bunch of scientists are getting together to manipulate data for a political gain.

Have you every been to scientific symposium? People present research and then get questions. People debate the information. The fact that you think a bunch of strong willed people would get together and say "Hey guys, lets lie about this." is laughable.

Sorry science does not work that way. The fact that you ignore the ramifications for a scientists to lie about his data is shocking.

I need to find a picture with a bunch of scientists standing around like a secret society fabricating data. This is the image I get in my head when you talk. Do you really think this way?

I do not support cap and trade either. I just have a problem with you not checking your posts before showing them to people. I have a problem with you spreading half-truths about science to cover your political stance.

By the OPT, the data, the science is on my side with multiple studies in multiple fields, 1000's. If the global warming deniers are correct, they need to publish their data, not opinion about others data. It will compete with the idea that the globe is warming. It will win out in the end if correct.

The opposing group does not have their data or refuses to publish it. I guess this is a conspiracy, too. The scientific community is supressing their data, right? Or maybe, their studies are not good.