Tag Archives: science integrity

Small epidemiological associations do not imply a significant risk

“When effects are this small, it is extremely possible that the effects are not real, but are artifacts of the statistical methods used in the original analysis.  If these findings had had Relative Risks or Risk Ratios of 4.0 or 7.9 or any value that might indicate a strong association, then I would be more convinced.  But with so many of the metrics not even passing the most basic test of significance, I am concerned that the findings represent only what John P.A. Ioannidis has termed “simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” “  click here

Here’s why the Clean Air Act (CAA) needs a ‘best available science’ clause.

To avoid basing rules on marginal or flawed science (e.g. here) as described below a “best available science” clause is needed in the Clean Air Act (CAA) — and other environmental laws — as in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA”)”:

“To the degree that an Agency action is based on science, the Administrator shall use (1) the best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific practices; and (2) data collected by accepted methods or best available methods (if
the reliability of the method and the nature of the decision justifies use of the data”. Public Law 104-182. Section 1412(b)(4)(D).


Click here to read the full report.


Climategate was real. Don’t be a Climategate denier!


McIntyre and Mckitrick (here) correct climate gate myths:

“Given the importance of climate science in today’s society, all of us expect more of climate scientists than merely that they not commit “outright fraud.” Exoneration at such a low threshold would be small exoneration indeed.
However, rather than confronting the corruption and misconduct apparent throughout the Climategate emails, the climate academic community shut their eyes to the affair, eventually even persuading itself that the offending scientists were victims, rather than offenders.This re-framing was made possible by numerous myths propagated about the affair, of which the following were especially important:
Myth #1: The Climategate scandal arose because “cherrypicked” emails were taken “out of context”.
Myth #2: The Climategate correspondents were “exonerated” following “thorough” and impartial investigations.
Myth #3: Scientific studies subsequent to Climategate have “confirmed” and “verified” the original Mann hockey stick.
These are only the major myths from a veritable tsunami of disinformation from the academic community. The myths are untrue and, in this article, we will explain why.”  (click here)

Climate modeler groupthink


  • n.
    The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.
  • n.
    A process of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially one characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to a perceived majority view.
  • n.
    decision making by a group (especially in a manner that discourages creativity or individual responsibility)

“Climate science has no system of checks and balances.  The people who write climate models are the same ones who evaluate themselves, and then journalists parrot what the modelers say, and refuse to print any other opinions.” click here

German activists spread climate falsehoods

“At XR and FFF rallies, speakers like telling outright lies with the aim of trying to get the masses of people to stampede in mass panic and blind anger.

One of these activists in Germany is Carola Rackete, reports Michael Krüger here at Science Skeptical. “ click here

Another politically-driven report about climate to ignore

It seems to me these authors (here) have used the same tactics to mislead the American public as those organizations it criticizes. This report has nothing to do with climate science and contributes nothing towards solving real climate issues we face. Like many previous reports of the same quality, the “report” should be ignored and refuted. Click here for more discussion about this “study”.

Nature retracts controversial climate paper

“Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2composition

Retraction to: Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8, published online 31 October 2018.”

For the retraction click here.