Why Science Today is Just Crap

[Terrel L. Shields]

 

[TerryRohrer]

"Nowadays, research quality is often no longer measured directly by the content of publications, but increasingly by commercial indicators such as the number of publications/citations by authors or the “reputation” (impact factor) of journals. These indicators are calculated in a non-transparent manner and without the involvement of the scientific community by commercial providers, who use them to boost sales of their databases worldwide. Fraudulent companies offer their services specifically to optimize these metrics. This is worthwhile for both individuals and institutions, because a higher ranking, e.g., in a university ranking, means better access to funding and (in an international context) the possibility of charging higher tuition fees and attracting more applicants. The collateral damage is a high percentage of publications whose sole purpose is to boost the indicators, but which no one reads because they contain no new scientific findings or are even flawed."

"The study cites some striking examples. For example, based on its database, the market leader for metrics, Clarivate Inc., calculated in 2019 that the university with the most world-class researchers in mathematics is a university in Taiwan – where mathematics is not even offered as a subject. Megajournals, which print anything as long as the authors pay for it, now publish more articles per year than all reputable mathematics journals (which do not require payment) combined. Fraudsters anonymously offer everything that influences key figures for sale, from articles to citations, in exchange for payment."

News - Research in Germany

www.research-in-germany.org

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

no longer measured directly by the content of publications, but increasingly by commercial indicators such as the number of publications/citations

Been that way a long time. The worst instructor professor when i was in grad school took a canoe trip down the Buffalo River above and below the old mining town of Rush, Arkansas. He then (with his grad student slaves) ran chemical tests and promptly wrote some 20 'science' papers on the geochemistry of the river samples. Local papers, regional, obscure periodicals, Society papers compiled annuals, etc. Got his Assoc. Prof a few weeks later. Another prof - far more competent was furious, as he was in line for that promotion in terms of tenure. So, he drug out old research he'd done when cooperating with a Russian Paleontologist and one in Iowa. They then publish dozens of papers as co-authors. Soon, he too had his promotion.

 

[Elliott]

The most biased professor I had was 3-terms of US History, young guy with big hair. The coed who sat next to me noticed I always got A's on exams and asked me what I did. I explained that you had to accept his interpretation of history as being 'oppressive.' Oh, and she was black.

I took a 'climate' class from a guy who came from social science, not science. Probably the worse rote instructor I ever had.

I told my kids when they went off to college, "Never take a class from a TA."

 

[Tom D]

MSN

Well duh to global warming hucksters. Thousands face plummeting subfreezing weather this weekend

Large portions of the Northeast and northern Appalachians are bracing for a deep chill after the National Weather Service (NWS) issued widespread freeze warnings and frost advisories, set to take effect overnight Friday into early Saturday morning.

Temperatures are expected to drop well below freezing in parts of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont, potentially endangering crops, outdoor vegetation, and plumbing infrastructure.

 

[J Grant]

Wake up, science deniers.

Science is not perfect and evolves; however, the supported and proven evidence endures. Individual professors who were lousy notwithstanding. l

Climate change ( its just a label!)- does not that the weather and temperature does not get cold outside in various locations and seasons. If the benchmark were it never gets cold out anymore, anywhere, then we would not be here - ur houses and ourselves would be submerged in water from melted permafrost, ice caps and rising sea levels. The idea is to prevent that.

If a person has cancer, the idea is to catch it in its early stages when it is treatable. Thus, a small sample ( a biopsy or blood test ) represents the whole.. These comments are akin to observing a person in the early stages of cancer and saying they are still walking around and look just fine to me.

 

[Tom D]

Oh my gosh, the planet earth has the early signs of global warming cancer. Makes logical sense to me.

 

[J Grant]

Oh my gosh, the planet earth has the early signs of global warming cancer. Makes logical sense to me.

It does if you research climate change beyond whatever narrow amount you do of sources that are denier-oriented.
It was an analogy, of course.
Do you change your tires when the tread starts to wear down (early stage), or wait until they shred or rip whle driving and you get into an accident?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Science is not perfect

The scientific method is. No model is science. No model is anything more than hypothesis. And if you were literate enough to understand what Dr. Hossenfelder is saying, you'd understand that most science papers are perfectly worthless. But again, real science is far above you pay grade.

You have no concept except to declare anyone disagreeing with CNN (your apparent "science" source) as a "denier" as if this was the holocaust. After 40 years declaring we have 'reached a tipping point" isn't it time as least ONE PREDICTION made by the global warming alarmists would come true? The seas level has not risen by 4'. The Maldives are not under water. The Arctic is not open seas in summer. The Antarctic ice is not shrinking. The days of 100 degrees heat have actually decreased not increased... dream on. Learn to read real science instead of simply watching MSNBC and CNN or reading some British pop magazine claiming the world is going to end soon. Chicken Little is your middle name. You have nary a fact to tell us about climate. Again every model is fabricated as Dr. Hossenfeld notes and are not falsifiable which is an absolute requirement to become "science." I hope you live to be 100 but chances are you will never live long enough to see ocean levels rise significantly or the earth to suffer catastrophic problems.

So, my challenge to you is to actually listen to the entire clip and look up the big words if you don't understand them.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It does if you research climate change beyond whatever narrow amount you do of sources that are denier-oriented.

The IPCC report is the bible of "climate change" alarmists, yet they only read the portion written for governments urging action. The report itself is mostly condensed versions of interpretations of the hundreds of references within the index of the report. But it is in those reports that actually explain the reasoning of the authors. Yet, thru it all, the compiled text plainly shows that the IPCC actually has LOW confidence in the validity of the various assertions. For instance, floods are not more common, but the damage is higher because property is more expensive, and people are building in the flood zones. The Dolphin Islands are classic. They are wiped out every few decades, yet people hustle back to rebuild. Ditto the Barrier Islands. Tonadoes are neither more frequent nor more powerful than they have ever been. Hurricanes are not more common. The days over 100 have decreased over the past 100 years.