“Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You’re right, the 97% consensus (on AGW) might not be accurate.

Recent studies indicate an even stronger agreement (99.94%).

A 2014 study by Cook et al., entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature“, analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991-2011. Out of them, about a third (4,013) expressed a position on man-made climate change, and 3,894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change. The authors also found that more recent papers were increasingly attributing climate change to mankind, indicating an increasing acceptance level.
But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. .

I never thought I'd post a link to the ultra alarmist site Skeptical Science, but even they think his findings are horse-pucky.

https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

[StuM]

Originally Posted by GordMay

supported the position that humans are causing climate change


.... finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change.

The key question which is overlooked is:
Assuming that humans are causing climate change: "what percentage of recent* warming is human caused and what proportion is natural"

*And of course, the other issue is what do we mean by "recent"? Post 1850, last 100 years, post 1950, post 1979?, this century?

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by StuM

I never thought I'd post a link to the ultra alarmist site Skeptical Science, but even they think his findings are horse-pucky.

https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

Of course they would. It cuts across the bows of the site owner's own research paper's findings.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You’re right, the 97% consensus (on AGW) might not be accurate.

Recent studies indicate an even stronger agreement (99.94%).

A 2014 study by Cook et al., entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature“, analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991-2011. Out of them, about a third (4,013) expressed a position on man-made climate change, and 3,894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change. The authors also found that more recent papers were increasingly attributing climate change to mankind, indicating an increasing acceptance level.
But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.
At the end of the day, a difference between 97% and 99.94%, is probably not going to sway many people who aren’t already convinced.

So we have gone from climate science has moved from "climate science has mostly been perverted" to "climate science has absolutely been perverted" to the cause of climate catastrophism.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You’re right, the 97% consensus (on AGW) might not be accurate.

Recent studies indicate an even stronger agreement (99.94%).

A 2014 study by Cook et al., entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature“, analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991-2011. Out of them, about a third (4,013) expressed a position on man-made climate change, and 3,894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change. The authors also found that more recent papers were increasingly attributing climate change to mankind, indicating an increasing acceptance level.
But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.
At the end of the day, a difference between 97% and 99.94%, is probably not going to sway many people who aren’t already convinced.

Gord I just reread the synopsis you p posted here .

Lets do just the numbers
11,944 papers reviewed.
4,013 expressed any MMGW position at all
So we are at approx 30% and of those
3,894 actually support the view of agw.
So its 97% of the 33% that say man has anything to do with it.
The Powell 2017 study is to imo be totally ignored due to a lack of actual data points.


In conclusion 32% of the total papers reviewed believe in agw .
3,894 ÷ 11,944 = .32

[CatNewBee]

Not if you count only the papers from the AGW band wagon. They have lots of funds to pay naive assistants to copy and paste into new papers and publish them for peer review all day long with no new information inside. I'll call it spam, they call it peer reviewed papers.

Clearly they out-weight the papers of real scientists.

[CatNewBee]

Originally Posted by GordMay

You’re right, the 97% consensus (on AGW) might not be accurate.

Recent studies indicate an even stronger agreement (99.94%).

A 2014 study by Cook et al., entitled “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature“, analyzed 11,944 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991-2011. Out of them, about a third (4,013) expressed a position on man-made climate change, and 3,894 (or 97%) supported the position that humans are causing climate change. The authors also found that more recent papers were increasingly attributing climate change to mankind, indicating an increasing acceptance level.
But in 2017, James Powell published an even larger meta-analysis of 54,195 peer-reviewed papers, finding a 99.94% consensus about human-caused climate change. Again, more recent papers seem to back the idea up even more overwhelmingly.
At the end of the day, a difference between 97% and 99.94%, is probably not going to sway many people who aren’t already convinced.

I know. I guess the propagated consensus that Gender is not about DNA, P*s and V*, and you can be a female or male or indefinite, if you feel so is also consensus of 99.9% of gender scientists with tons of pee r reviewed papers produced en mass. It does not make it right either. Same for climatologists.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by gamayun

Really? That just sounds too precious to be true. However, if this were a breakfast sandwich, I could totally understand. I don't do math in the morning!

What's bigger: 1/3 pound burgers or 1/4 pound burgers?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by SailOar

What's bigger: 1/3 pound burgers or 1/4 pound burgers?

Explains a lot about voters choices..

[GordMay]

Further to the original premise of this thread:

“Retire statistical significance” ~ by Valentin Amrhein et al.
800 scientists say it’s time to abandon “statistical significance”
Scientists should stop using the term “statistically significant” in their research, urges the authors of an editorial in a newly published special issue of The American Statistician.
The issue, Statistical Inference in the 21st Century: A World Beyond p<0.05, calls for an end to the practice of using a p-value of less than 0.05 as strong evidence against a null hypothesis or a value greater than 0.05 as strong evidence favoring a null hypothesis. Instead, p-values should be reported as continuous quantities and described in language stating what the value means in the scientific context.

P-values and “statistical significance” are widely misunderstood. Here’s what they actually mean.
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00857-9

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ➥ https://www.nature.com/magazine-asse...co-signatories

“The ASA's Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose” ~ by Ronald L. Wasserstein & Nicole A. Lazar (Editorial for “The American Statistician”)
➥ https://amstat.tandfonline.com/doi/a...8#.XJjSvNgpDIX

The following article is an excellent explanation of the issue, understandable by the layman (non-statistician):
➥ https://www.vox.com/latest-news/2019...lues-explained

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

No - consensus represents the current state of scientific understanding.

The consensus referenced merely represents the current state of understanding about a specific topic by a specific group. There is no coherent consensus about the implications of the consensus findings in terms of real-world costs/benefits for the larger population. This is difficult, maybe, to appreciate...so an abstraction:

So if 99.95% of chiropractors agree that your back pain is caused by your spine being out of alignment, when 99.999% of spines are out of alignment, are we to agree with the consensus of the chiropractors? Let's suppose we do.

So what happens when research shows that the more a person visits a doctor (of any type) for their back pain that the person's quality of life decreases? This researcher is called a loon by the legions of people who swear that they have been helped by their doctor. It doesn't matter that the research shows that the natural history of back pain disease (i.e. what happens to back pain without going to the doctor) parallels the "healed" people's statistics. But what's more is quite complicated. What happens when the researcher realizes that the spinal disc surgery suite that the hospital operates helps offset the cost of the under-funded child leukemia clinic? What happens when the researcher realizes that back pain clinics has become economically intertwined in the local community, such that if we actually start applying the best science...elements of the economy collapses with drastic consequences today for real-world people today? What is the researcher to do? Push his findings?
-
So even IF you are technically/scientifically/mathmatically/God-endorsed/whatever correct about a specific subject matter, you must consider the consequences of the applications of your findings. Maybe you're the first kid in your school that is told that Santa Claus isn't real...can you understand that maybe it's not a good idea to go tell every kid in school that Santa isn't real? What's the point of that? Make every kid in school feel bad? This is what the AGW people do as there is practically nothing to be done to stop it (assuming you live in the real world and understand economics, social psychology, etc, etc, etc).

To focus incessantly on the AGW-type stuff...standing on street corners holding signs talking about the end of the world, how we need to change our ways...is an ancient practice. Students of history will recognize that this is an ancient practice. Thomas Sewell talks about this phenomenon...that people need to have their outlet for end of the world (EOW) fears...that in the US (at least) the agnostic left exercises their EOW angst in saving the planet while the religious right seeks the religious solution. Both sides sharing the concerns, each turning to what they both believe in. But students of history will recognize that at least for the last 2,000 years it's been something unforeseen that caused the cataclysms, withstanding whatever consensus had developed at the time.

[CatNewBee]

OH NOOOOOO!

Santa Claus isn't real? REALLY? 99.9% of kids agree there is Santa and a naughty / nice list. Even the NASA / Air force tracks his reindeer flights on X-Mas eve. The USPS delivers all the wishes every year.

There is a CONSENSUS in governmental organizations he is reel!

If HE IS NOT REAL, how could we EVER believe in man made global warming at all? And what about the Tooth Fairy?

[Skipper Kenny]

Originally Posted by StuM

I never thought I'd post a link to the ultra alarmist site Skeptical Science, but even they think his findings are horse-pucky.

https://skepticalscience.com/Powell.html

I find it hilarious that a creature evolves from a dusty rock in space and then believes it's mission is to save it!

[David M]

Let me see if I have this right, we are supposed to believe one study about research over millions of other studies?

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by CatNewBee

OH NOOOOOO!

Santa Claus isn't real? REALLY? 99.9% of kids agree there is Santa and a naughty / nice list. Even the NASA / Air force tracks his reindeer flights on X-Mas eve. The USPS delivers all the wishes every year.

There is a CONSENSUS in governmental organizations he is reel!

If HE IS NOT REAL, how could we EVER believe in man made global warming at all? And what about the Tooth Fairy?

Oh he’s definately real, just need to recalibrate the accepted definition of reality, tacit knowledge and learnt behaviour!

http://https://www.livescience.com/4...ain-santa.html

The whole “story” began during a time where science, USPS and NASA were very different from today

But look at motivation...USPS always wanted your money, USAF always wanted target practice against forgin threats and kids always want to learn...errr via gifted plastic toys. And dont even get me started on the science of machine elves