“An article highly critical of my book Inconvenient Facts, a bestseller, has received wide distribution. It’s Easy to be Tricked by a Climate Denier purports to be a factual take-down of the book and, by extension, of me. However, it is really just one more example of how proponents of catastrophic man-made warming need to resort to lies and distortion in order to advance their agenda.” click here
“Well researched, clearly written, beautifully presented and, above all, fact-packed books such as Inconvenient Facts are absolutely essential to the very survival of democracy, to the restoration of true science, and to the ultimate triumph of objective truth. –Christopher Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley”
“The latest version of NOAA’s Global Historical Climatology network (GHCN) has an even more impressive hockey stick than prior versions, showing more than 1.6C warming – with a spectacular post 1970 hockey stick.” click here
Tsuyoshi Miyakawa. No raw data, no science: another possible source of the reproducibility crisis. Molecular Brain https://doi.org/10.1186/s13041-020-0552-2
A reproducibility crisis is a situation where many scientific studies cannot be reproduced. Inappropriate practices of science, such as HARKing, p-hacking, and selective reporting of positive results, have been suggested as causes of irreproducibility. In this editorial, I propose that a lack of raw data or data fabrication is another possible cause of irreproducibility.
As an Editor-in-Chief of Molecular Brain, I have handled 180 manuscripts since early 2017 and have made 41 editorial decisions categorized as “Revise before review,” requesting that the authors provide raw data. Surprisingly, among those 41 manuscripts, 21 were withdrawn without providing raw data, indicating that requiring raw data drove away more than half of the manuscripts. I rejected 19 out of the remaining 20 manuscripts because of insufficient raw data. Thus, more than 97% of the 41 manuscripts did not present the raw data supporting their results when requested by an editor, suggesting a possibility that the raw data did not exist from the beginning, at least in some portions of these cases.
Considering that any scientific study should be based on raw data, and that data storage space should no longer be a challenge, journals, in principle, should try to have their authors publicize raw data in a public database or journal site upon the publication of the paper to increase reproducibility of the published results and to increase public trust in science.
“EPA should ensure that the data and models underlying scientific studies that are pivotal to the regulatory action are available for review and reanalysis. The “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rulemaking is designed to increase transparency in the preparation, identification and use of science in rule-making. When final, this action will ensure that the regulatory science underlying EPA’s actions are made available in a manner sufficient for independent validation.“ …. “…the science transparency rule will ensure that all important studies underlying significant regulatory actions at the EPA, regardless of their source, are subject to a transparent review by qualified scientists.” click here