Sentences with phrase «about flawed papers»

And the EPA answered that directly, by saying that it is OK for scientists to write to people about flawed papers.

Not exact matches

The discovery of the «exercise hormone» irisin three years ago and more than 170 related papers about it since have been called into question by recent research showing they were based on flawed testing kits.

Four months after a paper it published on the genetics of centenarians was criticized for possible flaws, Science published an Editorial Expression of Concern about the work, noting that the authors are redoing their data.

After the Journal of Medical Entomology (JME) published the study — about the identification of genes that enable an insect to detect odors — an outside researcher wrote a letter to the journal highlighting flaws in the paper.

In 2014 he was the lead author on a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the systemic flaws in biomedical research, which, I feel, serves as a commentary about biology writ large.

She's literally read every one of my peer - reviewed journal articles and, before finding the many flaws in each paper, she always said something nice about my ideas — something one of my mentors always encouraged me to practice,» said Kim.

There's a troubling section, however, in which Mann creates a flawed dichotomy, hailing a paper by James Hansen and Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University (and others) pressing for deep carbon cuts and criticizing a peer, * Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, for complaining that the paper failed the Stephen Schneider / Gavin Schmidt test for distinguishing between the «is» of science and the «ought» determined by individual feelings about the state of the world and how to shape it.

He went on to discuss how the original paper's sea - rise projection was, in his view, flawed, but also how the way it was described distracted from overall confidence about rising seas in a warming world.

Confirmation biases would lead reviewers to work extra hard to find flaws with papers whose conclusions they dislike, and to be more permissive about methodological issues when they endorse the conclusions.

In a paper released on December 1 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Dr. Goklany says WHO's forecast that climate change would bring about 250,000 extra deaths annually between 2030 and 2050 is based on «absurd assumptions,» «willful exaggerations,» and «flawed methodologies.»

The frontpage implies that climate science to date has not been «real,» while the many errors made by the speakers as well as their serious credibility issues (Willie Soon's infamous paper, another paper more recently with Noah Robinson that made up data, Spencer's flawed book on climate sensitivity, Singer's history since about 1990, Schmitt's uncorrected error in a NASA paper, Bast and Taylor's lies in defense of Schmitt, and so on) suggest the opposite — the speakers at the ICCC are the ones attempting to falsify the science.

First it's; «momentum is building behind the controversial view that the numbers don't add up» then «A rising chorus of literature in the world's best scientific journals and most prestigious opinion pages has argued the climate change math is flawed» and «For climate scientists, irritating questions from «sceptics» about the «pause» have now become peer - reviewed papers...» which is the intro for Michael Asten as the first quote for the article.

I am talking specifically about possible flaws in THIS paper.

[DC: The «peer review corruption» I am most concerned about is that which allows publication of deeply flawed papers from the likes of lobby group allies like researchers Soon and Baliunas (Climate Research, back in 2003) or McLean et al (GRL, last year).]

First, you write, «Whatever flaws or ambiguities exist in the paper, the use of the letters as source materials for any comparison can not purely be a test of agreement with the IPCC (as we stated above — you could agree with every word in the IPCC report and still not want to do anything about emissions), but must be a test of someone's opinion about what to do about it... Thus the only way in my mind to interpret a comparison of signers is a categorization by policy direction, not understanding or agreement on the science.

Hence, the authors of the recent GRL paper did nice work sorting out flaws in earlier research, but their press release claim about the IPCC quote isn't substantiated for that reason alone — satellite data might be entirely missing changes in species composition.

The most unforgiveable unethical behavior surrounding the entire issue of «hiding the decline» and similar biases in published research, is when climate change scientists who know about their — «cherry picking the data», — biased and selective presentation of all data pertinent to published paper conclusions, and — outright errors in their data and peer - reviewed papers, don't speak out loudly in the media outlets that have misled the general public in reporting about their flawed, misleading research, as well as, associated journals and professional societies, to stop politicians and government regulators from using their flawed and misleading research results to pass laws and regulations that have severe effects on the prosperity and quality of life of their fellow citizens of the US and the world.