Home rebuttal: alarmists’ claims Climate Is Normal Climate Facts Our Best Data Who's Lying? What is Real Science Peer Review proxies Papers Debunking Claims NASA Debunk Antarctic Loss Real Cause of Climate Renewables Corals Trillion Dollar Industry Big Money Scaring green money Russian Money Paid by fossil fuel Warming Stopped Media Lies People are Dying History (politics) Extreme Weather? CO2 didn't warm arctic CO2 & Rate of warming CO2 lags Temperature CO2 Innocent! 1/2 of Warming Wrong Its Warming,But Acidification IPCC_Flawed IPCC Prediction Fail IPCC_Disproved IPCC_PeerReview IPCC Scientists IPCC&CLouds WWF Infiltrated the IPCC Harming People misconduct Data Adjustments Cooling since 1945? Drought, hurricanes etc. Arctic Antarctic Selected Emails Selected Quotes Fraud Of Century? 97 percent of scientists 25% of AMS / 50% JonesInterview An OK Prediction Data Sources False Deadlines Record Temperature Climate Change Truths Its OK to Lie! Energy Facts GridStorage CostlyEnergy Mann's Book Wegman styn_vs_mann Peer Review Error Statistical Errors The Sun Solar OceanHeat Ocean Heat Polar Bears OK AlGore's Errors Ask Questions Climate Models Local Food Threats Why I'm a Skeptic GreenhouseMoon Alternative Energy 1350+ realist papers Conflict of Interest? Muzzeled Scientists How To Argue Common Ground Hurricane No Proof NW Snow Pack James Hansen Consensus The Hockey Stick 650 Dissenters Easy Solution DataQuality Heat Island Is Science Settled? Ocean Level Sea Level sea_&_islands Glaciers Ice Sheets Greenland Gore's Mentor OGWC Articles Summary FinancialPapers OtherMotivations PeakOil Ozone Hole Fracking Acid Rain No Limits Videos Printables Links Briffa et al (1998) data

Debunking the Climate Scam

Billions of Dollars -  Fudged Data  -  Corrupt Scientists

Greedy Green Corporations - Trillion Dollar Prize

No Warming For Two decades - Illiterate Media

Bought and Paid For Organizations


Email WebMaster

Debuking Peer Review

Note that several of these articles are from top quality journals


Classical peer review: an empty gun

If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market,' says Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association .....Peer review would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.



Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors

"Mistakes in peer-reviewed papers are easy to find but hard to fix, report David B. Allison and colleagues."



Why we can't trust academic journals to tell the scientific truth

"Academic journals don't select the research they publish on scientific rigour alone. So why aren't academics taking to the streets about this?"



New Study: Most Economics Research Papers Are Wrong

Nearly 80% of the reported effects in these empirical economics literatures are exaggerated; typically, by a factor of two and with one-third inflated by a factor of four or more.



Peer review: Troubled from the start

"Referees are overworked. The problem of bias is intractable. The referee system has broken down and become an obstacle to scientific progress. Traditional refereeing is an antiquated form that might have been good for science in the past but it's high time to put it out of its misery."



Scientific peer review: an ineffective and unworthy institution

The thing is, the peer review of scientific reports is not only without documented value in advancing the scientific enterprise but, in a manner that few care to acknowledge openly, primarily serves ends that are less than noble. Peer review is widely assumed to provide an imprimatur of scientific quality (and significance) for a publication, but this is clearly not the case.



Have 1 in 5 UK academics fabricated data?

"The survey — of 215 UK academics — estimated that 1 in 7 had plagiarized from someone else’s work, and nearly 1 in 5 had fabricated data. Here’s how Joanna Williams and David Roberts at the University of Kent summarize the results in their full report, published by the Society for Research into Higher Education:"



Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”



Stop ignoring misconduct

"Efforts to reduce irreproducibility in research must also tackle the temptation to cheat, argue Donald S. Kornfeld and Sandra L. Titus."



Saving Science

"Science isn’t self-correcting, it’s self-destructing. To save the enterprise, scientists must come out of the lab and into the real world."



Evolutionary forces are causing a boom in bad science

"Call it a crisis. Researchers are finding it harder to replicate each other’s findings, while the rate of retractions of published studies is rapidly rising. But why is this happening?"



The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists

"Today, scientists’ success often isn’t measured by the quality of their questions or the rigor of their methods. It’s instead measured by how much grant money they win, the number of studies they publish, and how they spin their findings to appeal to the public."



Lying scientists and the lying lies they tell

"When you read academic papers, you aren't looking for treachery and deceit behind the stolid prose. Don't be so trusting: universities can be a wretched hive of scum and villainy. "




Second retraction for researcher who faked 70+ experiments

"Journal of Biological ChemistryTwo researchers found to have faked data by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI) have lost a paper that they co-authored."



Retraction record broken, again: University report should up Fujii total to 183

"Keeping up with the various investigations into the activities of Yoshitaka Fujii — the assumed record holder for retractions by a single author, with 172 likely — can be a challenge. Between the journals pulling his papers and the institutions looking into his misconduct, it’s hard to keep everything straight"



Researcher who sued to stop retractions earns his 7th

"A diabetes researcher who sued to stop a publisher from retracting his papers has just received his seventh retraction."



The Retraction Watch Leaderboard

"Who has the most retractions? Here’s our unofficial list (see notes on methodology), which we’ll update as more information comes to light:"



1st retraction for cancer researcher who doctored data in 11 studies

"A cancer journal has retracted a paper co-authored by a researcher who falsified or fabricated data in 11 studies, according to an investigation by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)."



Major publisher retracts 43 papers, alleging fake peer review

"BioMed Central, the UK based publisher of 277 medical and scientific journals, has retracted 43 papers “because the peer-review process was inappropriately influenced and compromised,” said a statement in a string of retraction notices published this week."



The Case of the Amazing Gay-Marriage Data: How a Graduate Student Reluctantly Uncovered a Huge Scientific Fraud

"Instead, he took a preexisting dataset, pawned it off as his own, and faked the persuasion “effects” of the canvassing. It’s the sort of brazen data fraud you just don’t see that often, especially in a journal like Science. "



Journal Retracts 1998 Paper Linking Autism to Vaccines



Retracted Scientific Studies: A Growing List

"Many retractions barely register outside of the scientific field. But in some instances, the studies that were clawed back made major waves in societal discussions of the issues they dealt with. This list recounts some prominent retractions that have occurred since 1980."



WSJ editorializes on posturing by Science Mag

"As you know, the LaCour fake research published in Science is another example of the junk science and politically motivated published material that appears in Science."



Science, Now Under Scrutiny Itself

"The crimes and misdemeanors of science used to be handled mostly in-house, with a private word at the faculty club, barbed questions at a conference, maybe a quiet dismissal. On the rare occasion when a journal publicly retracted a study, it typically did so in a cryptic footnote. Few were the wiser; many retracted studies have been cited as legitimate evidence by others years after the fact"



Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

"When scientists falsify data, they try to cover it up by writing differently in their published works. A pair of Stanford researchers have devised a way of identifying these written clues."



The Augean stables

A group of researchers recently looked at 55 large clinical studies funded by the NHLBI between 1970 and 2012 to see if the transparency rules had made any difference. What they found should shake the foundations of medical research…but it almost certainly won’t:

   57% of studies (17/30) published before 2000 showed a significant benefit in the primary outcome

   8% (2/25 trials published after 2000 showed a significant benefit in the primary outcome

 https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/08/27/the-augean-stables/  (based on: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0132382)