“Scientific studies should be reproducible—especially if they are used to justify government regulations. But NAS’s report, The Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science, released earlier this year, found that many supposedly scientific results cannot be reproduced in subsequent investigations.
We believe that individual scientists, the federal government, and state legislatures must take steps to promote reliable, reproducible science. And we believe that all Americans should be equipped with basic statistics and other tools to recognize faulty science when they see it.” click here
Piers Larcombea,b,⁎ , Peter Riddc The need for a formalised system of Quality Control for environmental policy-science Marine Pollution Bulletin 126 (2018) 449–461
Research science used to inform public policy decisions, herein defined as “Policy-Science”, is rarely subjected to rigorous checking, testing and replication. Studies of biomedical and other sciences indicate that a considerable fraction of published peer-reviewed scientific literature, perhaps half, has significant flaws. To demonstrate the potential failings of the present approaches to scientific Quality Control (QC), we describe examples of science associated with perceived threats to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. There appears a serious risk of efforts to improve the health of the GBR being directed inefficiently and/or away from the more serious threats. We suggest the need for a new organisation to undertake quality reviews and audits of important scientific results that underpin government spending decisions on the environment. Logically, such a body could also examine policy science in other key areas where governments rely heavily upon scientific results, such as education, health and criminology.
“However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.” click here and here
“Harde’s conclusion that less than 15% of the increase in CO2 concentration since the 19th century could be attributed to anthropogenic emissions was deemed unacceptable by gatekeepers of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) viewpoint. A critical reply to the paper was consequently published, but it included assumptive errors and misrepresentations of the original points. Harde’s exhaustive reply to the criticism has been refused publication, which has effectively silenced scientific debate on this salient topic.” click here
A reminder from the past about how peer-review can be abused:
“So, what’s going on here is that Phil Jones is trying to influence a review of a paper that officemate Tim Osborn is doing, but he wants people he’s asking to “forget” that he ever inquired about the issue so that Phil [ensures Tom] is “squeaky clean” when it comes to his opinion.” Click here for WUWT
Click here or the icon below to obtain the EPA Peer Review Handbook, which indicates how the agency is to conduct peer reviews. Whether the guidance is always properly followed or not is a different question.