|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 30, 2011 0:43:02 GMT
That link is hilarious. There is absolutely NO indication of scientific misconduct. I especially like when the third party comes in and asks when they're going to get into the allegations and the doofuses trying to lynch a scientist said "we did". Looks like you fell for it! Do you think it was good science? Explain. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 30, 2011 1:00:59 GMT
If the above was good science, I shudder to see bad science.
OH wait.......must be some of the stuff as of late from Prof Trenbeth.....and Mr. Schmidt has gotten awefully shoddy as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 1:10:51 GMT
If the above was good science, I shudder to see bad science. OH wait.......must be some of the stuff as of late from Prof Trenbeth.....and Mr. Schmidt has gotten awefully shoddy as well. Let's see... They were trying to see how many polar bears drowned in a given area. They surveyed 1/9 of the area and multiplied the results by 9 to get an approximation. Sounds good to me. What do you see wrong with the math? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 30, 2011 1:28:35 GMT
Let's see... They were trying to see how many polar bears drowned in a given area. They surveyed 1/9 of the area and multiplied the results by 9 to get an approximation. Sounds good to me. What do you see wrong with the math?
Whats wrong with it?
Its opportunism! They were studying bowhead whales, accidentally found some dead polar bears and then extrapolated the results!
Nothing at all random is going on here to make it science in any way other than it was a chance observation. Its an embarrassment to science!
Seems the only defense he has its not a study and its not statistics (as he claims in his interview). Its also not science. That defense might actually fly as the profession does seem to lack effective standards that prevents this sort of stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 1:36:53 GMT
Let's see... They were trying to see how many polar bears drowned in a given area. They surveyed 1/9 of the area and multiplied the results by 9 to get an approximation. Sounds good to me. What do you see wrong with the math?Whats wrong with it? Its opportunism! They were studying bowhead whales, accidentally found some dead polar bears and then extrapolated the results! Nothing at all random is going on here to make it science in any way other than it was a chance observation. Its an embarrassment to science! Seems the only defense he has its not a study and its not statistics (as he claims in his interview). Its also not science. That defense might actually fly as the profession does seem to lack effective standards that prevents this sort of stuff. It was a NOTE, for God's sake. He noticed something unusual and wrote a small note about it, which is appropriate. It indicates a line where someone might in the future want to do a full-fledged study. Are you saying that scientists should NEVER open their eyes to new information? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 30, 2011 1:47:48 GMT
No Richard......what he was saying is that scientists SHOULD open their eyes to new information.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 5:37:43 GMT
No Richard......what he was saying is that scientists SHOULD open their eyes to new information. Nope. He was complaining that Polar Bears weren't the subject of the study at hand. They noticed new information about an unrelated subject - polar bear drownings - and noted it. He maintained that they should have ignored the new information because they weren't looking for it previously. Your comment is baseless, as is his complaint. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 30, 2011 8:44:58 GMT
Let's see... They were trying to see how many polar bears drowned in a given area. They surveyed 1/9 of the area and multiplied the results by 9 to get an approximation. Sounds good to me. What do you see wrong with the math?
Nope. He was complaining that Polar Bears weren't the subject of the study at hand. They noticed new information about an unrelated subject - polar bear drownings - and noted it. He maintained that they should have ignored the new information because they weren't looking for it previously. Your comment is baseless, as is his complaint.
CHARLES MONNETT: Well, that‟s not scientific misconduct anyway. If anything, it‟s sloppy. I mean, that‟s not – I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct, uh, suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don‟t see any indication of that in what you‟re asking me about.
Sloppy isn't the word for it. A first semester statistics class teaches you not to extrapolate from anecdotal information. You don't even need a bachelor's degree to know that.
And in case you didn't notice its not me complaining. The complaint was filed by others. For all I know he can get away with what he admits to be sloppy work. Work that a first semester science student wouldn't produce unless he was failing the first semester.
Accountants are held to a considerably higher standard. And I am disappointed that science is not held to anywhere near the same standard.
I have no idea what kind of standards scientific misconduct entails so I have no idea if he should get away with it or not.
What I do believe though is science should be utilized to manage common resources. And to get to that point, to be accepted by the public as a credible source of information, it will require standards far higher than exemplified by Charles Monnett and the journals that publish such slop.
And to be clear here the complaint is not about reporting the sighting of dead polar bears. The complaint is about the psuedoscience extrapolation from a chance encounter that Monnett and others know isn't legitimate (by Monnett's own admission). He may be correct in the above statement of his that it doesn't rise to scientific misconduct. What I am saying is it should, not retroactively but prospectively if it isn't already considered scientific misconduct.
Take that any way you want Richard. But you are naive to believe science will build a credible public reputation to enable it to get the respect it deserves if such slop is allowed to go unpunished. And I believe that would be a shame.
If you care to defend Monnett on the basis of inadequate standards I am fine with that. But if you care to defend the inadequate standards then either you don't believe resources should be intelligently managed or you are stupid.
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 30, 2011 15:15:01 GMT
Let's see... They were trying to see how many polar bears drowned in a given area. They surveyed 1/9 of the area and multiplied the results by 9 to get an approximation. Sounds good to me. What do you see wrong with the math?
Nope. He was complaining that Polar Bears weren't the subject of the study at hand. They noticed new information about an unrelated subject - polar bear drownings - and noted it. He maintained that they should have ignored the new information because they weren't looking for it previously. Your comment is baseless, as is his complaint.CHARLES MONNETT: Well, that‟s not scientific misconduct anyway. If anything, it‟s sloppy. I mean, that‟s not – I mean, I mean, the level of criticism that they seem to have leveled here, scientific misconduct, uh, suggests that we did something deliberately to deceive or to, to change it. Um, I sure don‟t see any indication of that in what you‟re asking me about. Sloppy isn't the word for it. A first semester statistics class teaches you not to extrapolate from anecdotal information. You don't even need a bachelor's degree to know that. And in case you didn't notice its not me complaining. The complaint was filed by others. For all I know he can get away with what he admits to be sloppy work. Work that a first semester science student wouldn't produce unless he was failing the first semester. Accountants are held to a considerably higher standard. And I am disappointed that science is not held to anywhere near the same standard. I have no idea what kind of standards scientific misconduct entails so I have no idea if he should get away with it or not. What I do believe though is science should be utilized to manage common resources. And to get to that point, to be accepted by the public as a credible source of information, it will require standards far higher than exemplified by Charles Monnett and the journals that publish such slop. And to be clear here the complaint is not about reporting the sighting of dead polar bears. The complaint is about the psuedoscience extrapolation from a chance encounter that Monnett and others know isn't legitimate (by Monnett's own admission). He may be correct in the above statement of his that it doesn't rise to scientific misconduct. What I am saying is it should, not retroactively but prospectively if it isn't already considered scientific misconduct. Take that any way you want Richard. But you are naive to believe science will build a credible public reputation to enable it to get the respect it deserves if such slop is allowed to go unpunished. And I believe that would be a shame. If you care to defend Monnett on the basis of inadequate standards I am fine with that. But if you care to defend the inadequate standards then either you don't believe resources should be intelligently managed or you are stupid. You sure are ignorant. Zero resources were used. The study was on bowhead whales. The ONLY extrapolation was of transects to area. The transects were set up scientifically for the whales. The bears were just a bonus coming along for the ride. You erroneously say that it is a waste of money to get extra data without any cost. I am amazed that you lie about you NOT complaining when it is obvious that you certainly are. You're complaining about nothing at all, making a case out of thin air. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 30, 2011 15:28:26 GMT
You sure are ignorant. Zero resources were used. The study was on bowhead whales. The ONLY extrapolation was of transects to area. The transects were set up scientifically for the whales. The bears were just a bonus coming along for the ride. You erroneously say that it is a waste of money to get extra data without any cost. I am amazed that you lie about you NOT complaining when it is obvious that you certainly are. You're complaining about nothing at all, making a case out of thin air.
I have to admit I was somewhat puzzled. No more. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Aug 1, 2011 21:35:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Aug 1, 2011 23:46:26 GMT
If the above was good science, I shudder to see bad science. OH wait.......must be some of the stuff as of late from Prof Trenbeth.....and Mr. Schmidt has gotten awefully shoddy as well. Let's see... They were trying to see how many polar bears drowned in a given area. They surveyed 1/9 of the area and multiplied the results by 9 to get an approximation. Sounds good to me. What do you see wrong with the math? The actual problem Richard is that the study was not about polar bears. The study was about whales. During one section of the study, after a strong but not unusual storm, 3 or 4 dead bears were noticed. That is the extent of the data. Everything else, from how far the carcases were from land or ice is not known. How the bears died is not known. If this is unusual is not known. Did you know that during the three years after the storm, not a single dead bear was documented? Perhaps the bears were killed by an overabundance of ice? Hmmm? More ice = more dead polar bears. Less ice = no dead polar bears. Therefor everyone arguing in favor of cutting anthropogenic emissions is guilty of killing polar bears and needs to be imprisoned for intentional harm of this protected animal. The paragraph above is pretty much on par with the science of the polar bear study... As in pure conjecture of almost no value. Oh yes, except the guy and his team were spending millions of taxpayer dollars, and I just get insulted by people like you... which is its own reward. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 2, 2011 22:41:58 GMT
The observed four bears swimming. They noted that was unusual. Then after the storm they they noted three bears dead floating in the water. Again unusual. Makes far more sense the storm killed them, rather than "more ice" (given there was less ice not more).
Yeah conjecture is require to fill in the blanks, but it is of value. Everything was explained, people can analyze it. It's information of potential significance. At the very least this should have prompted more studies into the subject of bear mortality during storms in low ice cover conditions when they would be more likely to swimming.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2011 23:35:05 GMT
At the very least this should have prompted more studies into the subject of bear mortality during storms in low ice cover conditions when they would be more likely to swimming.
Huh? Are you spending your money on that? And where did you get the idea polar bears swim more when there is low ice?
|
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 3, 2011 3:27:51 GMT
The actual problem Richard is that the study was not about polar bears. The study was about whales. During one section of the study, after a strong but not unusual storm, 3 or 4 dead bears were noticed. That is the extent of the data. Yet many folks on this site want to hang the guy who saw the dead bears. I see absolutely nothing wrong in saying some bears died and it seems unusual. What's the beef? |
|
