Science is now cancelled? [USERS NOW BANNED FOR POLITICS]

[sk47]

Hello; Thanks for posting the video. Took over half an hour but worth the time. I will try my self to find one of his graphs in particular. The one with what he called the "spaggetti" (SP) of climate models and had the actual temps overlaid. That particular graph tells several stories.

The 4.7 billion dollars per year as a motivation was stark information.

Hello; I found this story in a text form. Not as long as the video. Below is the link. In the link is an included link called Coleman's corner. I clicked upon it but was told it cannot be found. I wanted to find a particular graph. I will try again but suspect the content may be gone.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner - One Citizen Speaking

Sponsored

 

[sk47]

John Coleman's Blog – Global Warming/Climate Change is not a problem (wordpress.com)

Hello; Found a text source for the graphs. The above link has all the graphs from the video I think. It does have the one i wanted to find with all the computer climate model predictions and with the actual temperatures.

Several times in this thread I have made the case about how models have had serious flaws when dealing with current actually measured and known data, yet are supposed to be accurate fifty years out.

I find that particular chart of interest. I await the various ways the information will be dismissed. Moat likely starting with (Quote from Burkey )" Oh wow. A meteorologist. "

 

[K4fxd]

I think you meant “large quantities” of these batteries.

I did say in my original post on the subject, bateries larger than those that power lap tops.

However if you had looked at the chart I posted small batteries self combust all the time.

https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/resources/lithium_batteries/media/Battery_incident_chart.pdf

 

[K4fxd]

Great link SK.

 

[MaskedRacerX]

Someone referenced John Coleman? JFC, read this first and factor it in to anything he writes:


https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hannel-founder-not-credible-on-global-warming

 

[K4fxd]

So the Guardian does a hit piece on him and you dismiss all the charts he references

 

[sk47]

So the Guardian does a hit piece on him and you dismiss all the charts he references

Hello; One way I have looked at information is if the information is accurate. The graphs Coleman published have data points. One way to dismiss information is to find flaws in the data or the way it is presented, not so much who came up with an article or how some critic wrote about it.

Had I been looking to be critical of the charts and graphs I would have noted the dates he was active. That said it ought to be easier to find ways to confirm he had good numbers or to find his numbers do not add up. That would be a criticism worth something.

Best I can recall I found two articles about computer climate models in which the folks who made the models admitted errors. I posted about these errors. As I recall the champions were OK with the errors, one of which was in the order of 50 years, and were still confident with the model predictions.

 

[HoosierDaddy]

So the Guardian does a hit piece on him and you dismiss all the charts he references

I'll assume that was a rhetorical question without a question mark.

 

[Burkey]

Great link SK.

Yep, it’s a great link.
It clearly demonstrates how easily convinced people can be.

I particularly like how some of the charts don’t even have a proper source, so that the “climate skeptics” can go and actually check accuracy of the data being presented, as skeptics would usually do.

I also like how one of the charts uses one very particular set of data. Never mind that the particular data set being used is often referred to as being amongst the least accurate, mainly because there’s large chunks of data missing from it.
The skeptic would know that of course, because they’d have done their research.

I suggest that a proper skeptic would view the article as a train wreck. The fact that it’s utterly devoid of any science is also fascinating.

Theres plenty more that could be said about it, but realistically, anyone who has a decent knowledge of the topic can spot the flaws from a mile away.

 

[K4fxd]

it may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary."

This is my status quo on anything telling me climate change is man made.

 

[Burkey]

https://reason.com/2021/07/09/how-much-scientific-research-is-actually-fraudulent/

Fraud may be rampant in biomedical research. My 2016 article "Broken Science" pointed to a variety of factors as explanations for why the results of a huge proportion of scientific studies were apparently generating false-positive results that could not be replicated by other researchers. A false positive in scientific research occurs when there is statistically significant evidence for something that isn't real (e.g., a drug cures an illness when it actually does not). The factors considered included issues like publication bias, and statistical chicanery associated with p-hacking, HARKing, and underpowered studies. My article did not address the possibility that the lack of reproducibility could be because a significant proportion of preclinical and clinical biomedical studies were actually fraudulent.

My subsequent article, "Most Scientific Findings Are False or Useless," which reported the conclusions of Arizona State University's School for the Future of Innovation in Society researcher Daniel Sarewitz's distressing essay, "Saving Science," also did not consider the possibility of extensive scientific dishonesty as an explanation for the massive proliferation of false positives. In his famous 2005 article, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," Stanford University biostatistician John Ioannidis cited conflicts of interest as one factor driving the generation of false positives but also did not suggest that actual research fraud was a big problem.

How bad is the false-positive problem in scientific research? As I earlier reported, a 2015 editorial in The Lancet observed that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." A 2015 British Academy of Medical Sciences report suggested that the false discovery rate in some areas of biomedicine could be as high as 69 percent. In an email exchange with me, Ioannidis estimated that the nonreplication rates in biomedical observational and preclinical studies could be as high as 90 percent.

The possibility that fraud may well be responsible for a significant proportion of the false positives reported in the scientific literature is suggested by a couple of new Dutch studies. Both studies are preprints that report the results of surveys of thousands of scientists in the Netherlands aiming to probe the prevalence of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct.

Summarizing their results, an article in Science notes, "More than half of Dutch scientists regularly engage in questionable research practices, such as hiding flaws in their research design or selectively citing literature. And one in 12 [8 percent] admitted to committing a more serious form of research misconduct within the past 3 years: the fabrication or falsification of research results." Daniele Fanelli, a research ethicist at the London School of Economics, tells Science that 51 percent of researchers admitting to questionable research practices "could still be an underestimate."

In June, a meta-analysis of prior studies on questionable research practices and misconduct published in the journal Science and Engineering Ethics reported that more than 15 percent of researchers had witnessed others who had committed at least one instance of research misconduct (falsification, fabrication, plagiarism), while nearly 40 percent were aware of others who had engaged in at least one questionable research practice.

In a blistering editorial earlier this week, former editor of the medical journal The BMJ Richard Smith asks if it's "time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise." Smith calls attention to a systematic review of randomized controlled trials recently submitted to the journal Anaesthesia by British anesthetist John Carlisle. He found that of the 153 studies for which individual patient data were available, 44 percent had untrustworthy data and 26 percent were what he called "zombie" trials whose results are animated by false data. Carlisle pointed out that many of the zombie trials came from researchers in Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey.

In an editorial, Ioannidis observes that the zombie anesthesia trials added up to "100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan." Taking the number of clinical trials from these countries listed with the World Health Organization's registry and extrapolating from the false trial rates identified by Carlisle, Ioannidis estimates that there are "almost 90,000 registered false trials from these countries, including some 50,000 zombies." Consequently, he concludes that "hundreds of thousands of zombie randomised trials circulate among us." Since randomized controlled trials are the gold standard for clinical research, Ioannidis adds, "One dreads to think of other study designs, for example, observational research, that are even less likely to be regulated and more likely to be sloppy than randomised trials."

In his BMJ editorial, Smith cites the work of Barbara K. Redman, author of Research Misconduct Policy in Biomedicine: Beyond the Bad-Apple Approach. During a webinar on research fraud, Smith reported that she insisted "that it is not a problem of bad apples but bad barrels if not of rotten forests or orchards." Redman argues, according to Smith, "that research misconduct is a systems problem—the system provides incentives to publish fraudulent research and does not have adequate regulatory processes." The research publication system is built on trust and peer review is not designed to detect fraud. Journals, publishers, funders, and research institutions have little incentive to check for fraud and a big disincentive against damaging their reputations by retracting studies.

So what can be done to stem the tide of apparently fraudulent research? Ioannidis suggests that one useful step would be to require that all datasets must be made available for reanalysis by other researchers. That is how Carlisle was able to identify untrustworthy and zombie anesthesia studies. Some hard thinking needs to be done about how to change incentives from publishing studies to discovering the true things about the world. For the time being, Smith may be right that "it may be time to move from assuming that research has been honestly conducted and reported to assuming it to be untrustworthy until there is some evidence to the contrary."

Nevertheless, I still agree with Ioannidis, who once told me, "Science is, was, and will continue to be the best thing that has happened to human beings."

Medicine is amongst the trickiest of this sciences. There’s no doubt about that.
Give the same drug to ten people and you can expect a range of responses.
Physics, geology etc, not so much.

 

[Burkey]

This is my status quo on anything telling me climate change is man made.

You should also apply that same logic to ALL the sciences if you’re going to play the role of “skeptic”.
Let’s assume that biology doesn’t work as science has predicted. and explained. It’s now your job to go and have sex with several thousand men, in order to disprove the “theory“ of sexual reproduction.
Just keep doing it and doing it until such time that you produce a child. No child? Well, that doesn’t “prove” that biology is correct. It just proves that it hasn’t happened yet.

Or are you willing to accept that biology has it pretty well covered?

 

[K4fxd]

are you willing to accept that biology has it pretty well covered?

2 points to answer

1) I'm willing to try with as many females that will let me.

2) I accept that your religion is man made climate change and no amount of proof against it will sway your belief.

 

[Burkey]

2 points to answer

1) I'm willing to try with as many females that will let me.

2) I accept that your religion is man made climate change and no amount of proof against it will sway your belief.

You could most certainly sway me in my “belief”.
You could start by proving that CO2 is incapable of warming the planet. All you need to do is disprove a hundred years or more of accepted physics.
Go for it. There’s your starting point.

Shagging females wouldn’t help.…you just told us the theory shouldn’t be believed until proven…
ergo, until you prove that men are incapable of becoming pregnant, by your standard, it can’t be believed.

Does “null hypothesis” or “falsifiability” mean anything to you?

 

[sk47]

How long will my EV battery last? Here’s what to know (msn.com)

Quote from link: “Regularly depleting all or most of a battery’s charge will reduce its capacity more quickly over time. Onboard battery management systems prevent an electric car’s power source from becoming discharged completely to keep it working efficiently. However, some experts say it is best to avoid letting the charge routinely drop below 45%”

“On the other side of the gauge, owners can help keep EV batteries healthy by not consistently charging to 100% capacity.”

“EV batteries charge when they’re plugged in and discharge when in use. Repeating this cycle of charging and discharging degrades the battery over time. It decreases the amount of charge the battery can hold. It increases the amount of time needed to recharge the battery.”

“Most important, the charging cycles take a toll on the lifespan of an electric car battery.”

“Other factors can impact how long electric car batteries last. Heat and lithium-ion batteries are not a good combination, which is why most EVs have liquid-cooled battery packs. Even so, electric cars in hotter regions will degrade faster.”

“While they offer the convenience of speed, regularly using Level 3 fast-charging stations can shorten the expected battery life in electric vehicles. These high-voltage DC stations can charge an EV’s battery up to 80% in about 30 minutes. Still, the process can generate heat in the battery and therefore affect its long-term performance.”



Hello; (My Comments) I learned some things in this link. If I want the battery in an EV to last as long as possible there are some practices to use. Some will make the EV much less practical to use. One will make those in hot areas have the battery packs go bad quicker no matter what they do. So I will have to add to the list of particular EV factors.

I had already known of “range anxiety” and have figured to get the greatest range I will have to buy a high end EV. The way it seems to be is the more expensive EV’s have the bigger/better battery packs. Now I will have to either accept having to replace expensive battery packs earlier or try to not let the battery pack discharge down to 45%. So how will I keep the battery at higher than 45%? If I have a 300 mile range then 45% of that is 135 miles. So if I can keep my trips to under 165 I will be helping battery life.

But wait, there is the 100% charge is hard on the battery pack item mentioned. I do not know how to deal with that one exactly. I was thinking to plug in to charge and walk away. Someone will have to help me on that one.

I would plan to use an EV so cannot figure any way to avoid the charge –recharge cycles. I guess this battery life degrading practice is going to be part of the package.

Using the rapid chargers apparently shortens the life of an EV battery pack. I had planned to have one at my home if I can afford it. I guess this one is a tradeoff of convenience over battery life. If I want my EV to be ready sooner I will have to shorten the battery life.

Sponsored