Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 24-03-2019, 17:35   #46
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,130
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
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 is offline  
Old 24-03-2019, 17:43   #47
Senior Cruiser
 
StuM's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Port Moresby,Papua New Guinea
Boat: FP Belize Maestro 43 and OPB
Posts: 10,130
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
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?
__________________

StuM is offline  
Old 24-03-2019, 18:08   #48
Registered User
 
Reefmagnet's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: puɐןsuǝǝnb 'ʎɐʞɔɐɯ
Boat: Nantucket Island 33
Posts: 3,988
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
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.
Reefmagnet is online now  
Old 24-03-2019, 18:20   #49
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Australia
Boat: Island Packet 40
Posts: 3,608
Images: 7
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
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.
RaymondR is offline  
Old 24-03-2019, 18:48   #50
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
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
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 02:14   #51
Registered User
 
CatNewBee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2017
Boat: Lagoon 400S2
Posts: 2,924
Images: 3
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

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.
__________________
Lagoon 400S2 refit for cruising: LiFeYPO4, solar and electric galley...
CatNewBee is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 03:28   #52
Registered User
 
CatNewBee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2017
Boat: Lagoon 400S2
Posts: 2,924
Images: 3
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
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.
__________________
Lagoon 400S2 refit for cruising: LiFeYPO4, solar and electric galley...
CatNewBee is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 04:46   #53
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamayun View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellosailor
About five years ago, one of the biggest "burger" franchise companies tested out a new product. They were going to sell 1/3 pound burgers, at the same price that their competition was selling 1/4 pound burgers for. The idea being, same price, bigger burger, who could resist that?

Apparently everyone. The field tests overwhelmingly came back saying "Four is bigger than three, so 1/4 pound burger must be bigger than 1/3 pound burger...we'd rather buy the 1/4 pound burger for the same price."

As Walt Kelly's Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
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?
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 04:56   #54
Freelance Delivery Skipper..
 
boatman61's Avatar

Community Sponsor
Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: PORTUGAL
Posts: 24,605
Images: 2
pirate Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
Explains a lot about voters choices..
__________________


Born To Be Wild.. Click on the picture.
boatman61 is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 06:21   #55
Senior Cruiser
 
GordMay's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Thunder Bay, Ontario - 48-29N x 89-20W
Boat: (Cruiser Living On Dirt)
Posts: 38,198
Images: 241
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

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
__________________
Gord May
"If you didn't have the time or money to do it right in the first place, when will you get the time/$ to fix it?"



GordMay is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 06:49   #56
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 788
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by GordMay View Post
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.
Singularity is offline  
Old 25-03-2019, 06:58   #57
Registered User
 
CatNewBee's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2017
Boat: Lagoon 400S2
Posts: 2,924
Images: 3
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

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?

__________________
Lagoon 400S2 refit for cruising: LiFeYPO4, solar and electric galley...
CatNewBee is offline  
Old 16-04-2019, 12:01   #58
Registered User
 
Skipper Kenny's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: PUGET SOUND
Boat: HOBIE 18
Posts: 55
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuM View Post
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!
__________________
You may see horses try to fly, A dog with periwinkle eyes, But peppered earth with chunks of sky, Now there's a sight worth seein'
Skipper Kenny is offline  
Old 16-04-2019, 13:27   #59
Moderator Emeritus
 
David M's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay
Boat: research vessel
Posts: 10,393
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

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

Life begins where land ends.
David M is offline  
Old 16-04-2019, 14:40   #60
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Devon, UK
Posts: 137
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatNewBee View Post
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
__________________

Puddleduck is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
arc, research

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help analyze personal inspection findings (1 of 5) pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 5 24-09-2018 13:01
Help analyze personal inspection findings (4 of 5) - coolant deposits pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 0 07-09-2018 10:57
Help analyze personal inspection findings (3 of 5) - chainplate alignment pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 13 31-08-2018 20:26
Help analyze personal inspection findings (2 of 5) - rudder corrosion pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 8 30-08-2018 16:30
Findings Issued in Block Island Ferry Collision Soundbounder General Sailing Forum 11 14-06-2011 06:01

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.