/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16061184

>>16008519
"corrected" data is always corrected to fit a political narrative

>>16009833

>>15995687
thats not what was going on in the climategate emails

>>15940621
Oslo, Norway hit it's RECORD cold yesterday with -31.1C. Beating it's previous record which was two days ago at -27.8C.

Climate scientists busted falsifying data again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wz6K9C6G5oA

>>15929409

Is that what they're talking about when they say they're trying to "hide the decline"?

>>15806411
>These think tanks have a long history of manipulating data and outright fabrication.
no they don't, you're just making that up.
the global warming shills are the ones with a documented history of fabirication

>>15753505
>the hockey stick meme

plants require less moisture in high CO2 environments

>>15730847
pretty neat that the 1930s were warmer than the current era, NASA and the gang really hid the temperature decline pretty effectively

>>15723633
fake and gay

Much reporting of the wildfires in Maui has said climate change contributed to the disaster by helping to create conditions that caused the fires to spark and spread quickly.

The blazes, which killed at least 115 people, are believed to have been started by a downed electricity line, but observers have said rising temperatures caused extremely dry conditions on the Hawaiian island.

Brown said the media operates like scientific journals in that the focus on climate change 'fits a simple storyline that rewards the person telling it'.

Scientists whose careers depend on their work being published in major journals also 'tailor' their work to 'support the mainstream narrative', he said.

'This leads to a second unspoken rule in writing a successful climate paper,' he added. 'The authors should ignore—or at least downplay—practical actions that can counter the impact of climate change.'

He gave examples of factors which are ignored, including a 'decline in deaths from weather and climate disasters over the last century'. In the case of wildfires, Brown says 'current research indicates that these changes in forest management practices could completely negate the detrimental impacts of climate change on wildfires'.

Poor forest management has also been blamed for a record number of wildfires in Canada this year.

But 'the more practical kind of analysis is discouraged' because it 'weakens the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions', Brown said.

Successful papers also often use 'less intuitive metrics' to measure the impacts of climate change because they 'generate the most eye-popping numbers', he said.

He went onto to claim that other papers he's written which don't match a certain narrative have been 'rejected out of hand by the editors of distinguished journals, and I had to settle for less prestigious outlets'.

>Despite recent scandals of research misconduct and error, the academic world still seems determined to look the other way at scientific fraud

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/scientific-misconduct-retraction-watch

Scientific misconduct has enjoyed some limelight lately. The president of Stanford, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, resigned last month after a series of investigations exposed serious problems in his research; an independent review of Tessier-Lavigne’s work found no evidence that he falsified data himself but concluded that his research failed standards “of scientific rigor and process” and that he failed to correct the record on multiple occasions.

And in June it was revealed that a scholar at Harvard Business School, Francesca Gino, was accused of having falsified research about – wait for it – honesty.

Of course, scientific misconduct does not happen only at Stanford and Harvard. Of the nearly 5,500 retractions we catalogued in 2022, and the thousands of cases we have reported on since launching our watchdog website Retraction Watch in 2010, the vast majority involve researchers at institutions without anywhere near Stanford and Harvard’s pedigrees.

The number of retractions each year reflects about a tenth of a percent of the papers published in a given year – in other words, one in 1,000. Yet the figure has grown significantly from about 40 retractions in 2000, far outpacing growth in the annual volume of papers published.

Retractions have risen sharply in recent years for two main reasons: first, sleuthing, largely by volunteers who comb academic literature for anomalies, and, second, major publishers’ (belated) recognition that their business models have made them susceptible to paper mills – scientific chop shops that sell everything from authorships to entire manuscripts to researchers who need to publish lest they perish.

>>15600400
>where are you getting your information?
the global warming shills make up lies and falsify data constantly, they get their data from their imagination, they even invented fake digital thermometers that read high in order to help shill their false narrative

>>15574544
I can
Global warming is fake news

>>15556941
>What is fraudulent about Mann's chart?
The Y axis

>>15554530
this

>>15538455
the soientists wouldn't need to scheme and lie about global warming if it were a genuine phenomenon.

>>15540999
>the hockey stick