Climate change = settled science

[Hawkmoon]

Except that, if it's "settled science," why do fewer than 1 percent of the articles follow the scientific method?

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/03/29/j-scott-armstrong-fraction-1-papers-scientific-journals-follow-scientific-method/

Oh ... "follow the money."

Digging deeper into their motivations, Armstrong pointed to the wealth of incentives for publishing papers with politically convenient rather than scientific conclusions.

“They’re rewarded for doing non-scientific research. One of my favourite examples is testing statistical significance – that’s invalid. It’s been over 100 years we’ve been fighting the fight against that. Even its inventor thought it wasn’t going to amount to anything. You can be rewarded then, for following an invalid [method].”

...

“I’ve [gone through] my whole career, with lots of publications, and I’ve never gotten a research grant. And I’m proud of that now.”

[MechAg94]

Interesting.  I wonder what his methods were in reaching this conclusion?   

[230RN]

Well, I've shot my wad* on the climate change aspect of non-science nonsense, but it used to irk me no end in other journal articles and "studies" where finding "no significant difference" somehow resulted in reporting the results as there being "no difference."

Inferential statistics don't work that way.

I'm sure Ben can chime in on this one and what rejecting the null hypothesis actually means.

I railed and ranted directly to Dr. Linus Pauling about this and basically, he answered:  "Yup."

Terry, 230RN

*REF:
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=54033.msg1100187;topicseen#msg1100187