Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Please, what result are you referring to, tha
don't confirm the results"?
Regards,
Jack
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Folkerts, Timothy J wrote:
I wonder how much of this same effect is at work in AGW. As the article says:
"The disturbing implication of the Crabbe study is that a lot of extraordinary scientific data are nothing but noise. The hyperactivity of those coked-up Edmonton mice wasn?t an interesting new fact?it was a meaningless outlier, a by-product of invisible variables we don?t understand."
and
"The problem of selective reporting is rooted in a fundamental cognitive flaw, which is that we like proving ourselves right and hate being wrong. ?It feels good to validate a hypothesis,? Ioannidis said. ?It feels even better when you?ve got a financial interest in the idea or your career depends upon it. And that?s why, even after a claim has been systematically disproven??he cites, for instance, the early work on hormone replacement therapy, or claims involving various vitamins??you still see some stubborn researchers citing the first few studies that show a strong effect. They really want to believe that it?s true."
There is a clear reason to expect AGW (increased CO2). There is clear increase in temperature in the last few decades. How much do researchers pursue results that confirm the results, while dropping results that so no results, simply from psychology, not impartial science?
Tim Folkerts