A fascinating exercise for any objective reporter to undertake would be to ask the student to cite actual physical evidence (full context document scans, undercover video / audio transcripts, leaked emails, money - transfer receipts, etc.) proving skeptic scientists were paid to fabricate demonstratively
false science papers, reports, assessments or viewpoints — material that could stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing proving a pay - for - performance arrangement exists.
This abysmal failure to show us all absolute evidence of illicit money exchanged for fabricated, demonstratively
false science papers / assessments is the proverbial «mathematical certainty «that dooms the accusation, and places the whole idea of man - caused global warming in peril of sinking if its promoters can not defend their position against science - based criticism from skeptic scientists.
Not exact matches
«Anomaly detection isn't new, and it has a problematic history of reporting a lot of
false positives,» says Dr. Will Enck, an assistant professor of computer
science at NC State and co-author of a
paper on the work.
According to an investigation into the CJP scandal published in the internationally circulated weekly
Science, the
paper was submitted under
false pretences.
The
paper, Busting Myths about Women in STEM, says
false perceptions are holding back
science and society.
The patterns found in this PLoS One
paper — «Why Most Biomedical Findings Echoed by Newspapers Turn out to be
False: the Case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder» — are relevant far outside the realm of medical
science.
For those of us who waded through the quagmire of errors,
false assertions and confused physics of M07, the above statement does not encourage serious examination of this
paper, despite his suggestion that the present work is ``... a remarkable achievement of planetary
science.»
If they are doing «research» on the taxpayer's dime, are coming to conclusions which — even on the little data that are available — would be among the
falsest and most bogus in the history of
science (if the
paper had had anything recognizable to do with
science in the first place), the question of fraud against taxpayers arises.
So many social
science papers you blog on seem to begin with
false assumptions.»
With the signature of a former NAS president, and a research
paper that appeared to be published in one of the most prestigious
science journals in the world, many scientists were duped into signing a petition based on a
false impression.
After all, we already know that if Watts interprets a mainstream scientific
paper or discussion to lie in the direction of «proving climate
science false», he's misreading it.
Their tactic is not only to pick the contradictory evidence — also to pick the weakest
papers (they can criticise them and thus fly a kite) or the older
papers (the
science are is easy to criticise with the wisdom of hindsight; and denialists also claim that anything proceeding from those paeprs is
false also).