That alone makes any so-called study suspicious, if you do not allow your peers to review your samples or methods there is no way a study may be verified. And yes the comments are a satisfying read.Academic peers who have sought to examine the findings say Lankford refuses to share the data and details he used to support his findings, or submit it to standard peer review.
Science is all about skepticism and questioning. No one at the time said, "oh hey, now we have the immutable word on the health value of coffee, eggs, bacon and butter and we don't need to ever go there again." No, other scientists said, "How do you figure? What is you data? What is your methodology? We're going to have to check that for ourselves."Just like "Climate Change" studies that are junk science. If we listened to the "experts" from 20 years ago, we would be underwater today. I remember in the 70's the "experts" said that a mini ice age was coming, remember that predication?
I have come to the conclusion that all these so called "experts" have some type of vested interest in the BS that they spout. It's all about control and getting a financial pay out.
Remember when coffee, eggs, bacon, butter, etc. was dangerous? Than it was pronounced to be okay? These fools have no idea!
I wish they would just leave us alone!
Good points. The phrase "settled science" is an oxymoron. Science is still examining gravity to determine how it works. How can climate change and genetics be "settled"?Science is all about skepticism and questioning. No one at the time said, "oh hey, now we have the immutable word on the health value of coffee, eggs, bacon and butter and we don't need to ever go there again." No, other scientists said, "How do you figure? What is you data? What is your methodology? We're going to have to check that for ourselves."
You should be happy that there are scientist who do this, you're posting on an internet board using a computer or device that has more power than what was used to go to the moon and yet you want to whine about science?
It'd do everyone on the planet good to think more scientifically.
Anecdotal stories are fine, for example when I was a young man come winter I had to trudge out to the pond every morning with an axe to chop a watering hole for the cattle starting about the last week of december up till around the middle of february. I've not had to break ice on the pond even once in the last six years. Does that mean that climate change is happening? Maybe or maybe not but if they had data based on 20,000 or so Warren's across North America and the results were the same then it would call for more study. However my experience is mine and no one else. I am probably about as clear as mud here it's just a pet peeve to see someone on the internet in the modern technological civilization we live in whine about science
Peer review and replication of results certainly add credibility to an analysis. One of the things that doesn't get considered much in laymen's' considerations of the world of science, though, is all of the places the process gets skewed in ways that are completely unrelated to the data collected and how it was analyzed.Good points. The phrase "settled science" is an oxymoron. Science is still examining gravity to determine how it works. How can climate change and genetics be "settled"?
This is the same process used by congress to study the effects of new policies. The Congressional Budget Office is a non partisan accounting office that provides economic studies to support Congress. When Congress submits a proposed study, the person or group that submits it has to provide all of the variables. That's when things get screwy. If you want to prove that a program will be completely funded through taxes, you can provide a variable for unemployment that shows unemployment to be at 3% over the next 10 years and economic growth at 10%.It's getting to the point at which many of my fellow (cough cough) scientists are merely political activists with advanced degrees and no conscience.
Regarding the data and methods, perhaps what we need to know the most are what are the assumptions made? This is where (alleged) climate scientists do much of their dirty work. Computer models can handle only so many variables before they are beyond rational confidence limits; so, the modelers just assume unverifiable things (that might make "junk" look pretty good by comparison) and just happen to make their counterfeit science case.