Study was unable to replicate climate change contrarian paper science.

[Paulos23]

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ou-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers

I am glad they did this. It doesn't hurt to double check claims.

 

[Strathos]

The link gets a 404 error when I try to click on it

 

[Paulos23]

Sorry. Phone hicupped. Fixed.

 

[ananda]

Where is this paper's authors' Conflict of Interest Research Disclosure statement?

 

[Paulos23]

Where is this paper's authors' Conflict of Interest Research Disclosure statement?

I don't know what that is. But here is the link to the paper. Maybe there is a reference in there.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

 

[ananda]

I don't know what that is. But here is the link to the paper. Maybe there is a reference in there.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Conflict of Interest disclosures is a statement by papers' authors which show how they may or may not have a conflict of interest. For example, if this paper's authors were paid by pro-global warming companies, they should disclose that conflict of interest. If there were no conflict of interest, they would also generally state that as well in the paper.

Another example: A scientific paper which showed the benefits of a prescription drug might say that their authors were paid by the manufacturer of that drug.

The fact that there is no such disclosure (that I can find) makes this particular paper very questionable to me.

 

[Paulos23]

Conflict of Interest disclosures is a statement by papers' authors which show how they may or may not have a conflict of interest. For example, if this paper's authors were paid by pro-global warming companies, they should disclose that conflict of interest. If there were no conflict of interest, they would also generally state that as well in the paper.

Another example: A scientific paper which showed the benefits of a prescription drug might say that their authors were paid by the manufacturer of that drug.

The fact that there is no such disclosure (that I can find) makes this particular paper very questionable to me.

Why? Re-examining published papers is part of the peer review process. They could have done this on curiosity alone.

 

[ananda]

Why? Re-examining published papers is part of the peer review process. They could have done this on curiosity alone.

They're reviewing other papers that have already gone through other peer review processes. Why should I believe their peer review over the original peer review? What are their conflicts of interest?

 

[Paulos23]

They're reviewing other papers that have already gone through other peer review processes. Why should I believe their peer review over the original peer review? What are their conflicts of interest?

Because they where trying to duplicate their claims in their papers. Just because it was published doesn't mean it is excepted science or accurate. Their experiments and data should be repeatable.

Why do they need a conflict of interest for that? What conflict do you see from just trying to duplicate studies?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

100 Reasons why Climate Change is Normal

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

 

[ananda]

Because they where trying to duplicate their claims in their papers. Just because it was published doesn't mean it is excepted science or accurate. Their experiments and data should be repeatable.

Why do they need a conflict of interest for that? What conflict do you see from just trying to duplicate studies?

If others can discard data, then they can too.

 

[The Cadet]

Where is this paper's authors' Conflict of Interest Research Disclosure statement?

Why would you immediately assume that the authors have a conflict of interest, particularly one worth disclosing?

100 Reasons why Climate Change is Normal

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/146138/100-reasons-why-climate-change-is-natural

A gish gallop of nonsense with no merit, most of which is either completely wrong or completely irrelevant and easily countered by a quick trip to Skeptical Science.

 

[ananda]

Why would you immediately assume that the authors have a conflict of interest, particularly one worth disclosing?

There is a difference between "immediately assum[ing] that the authors have a conflict of interest" and "investigating the potentiality of a conflict of interest which the authors have not revealed". I am holding the latter position.

 

[AirPo]

There is a difference between "immediately assum[ing] that the authors have a conflict of interest" and "investigating the potentiality of a conflict of interest which the authors have not revealed". I am holding the latter position.

Bringing it up in the first post does not support "investigating the potentiality of a conflict of interest which the authors have not revealed" over "immediately assum[ing] that the authors have a conflict of interest."

 

[The Cadet]

There is a difference between "immediately assum[ing] that the authors have a conflict of interest" and "investigating the potentiality of a conflict of interest which the authors have not revealed". I am holding the latter position.

But you immediately demanded to know where their statement on this is. But it's completely typical to leave out any such statement if there is no conflict of interest. It missing is a pretty good sign that there is no significant conflict of interest.

 

[ananda]

But you immediately demanded to know where their statement on this is. But it's completely typical to leave out any such statement if there is no conflict of interest. It missing is a pretty good sign that there is no significant conflict of interest.

Yes, I immediately investigated the potential for a conflict of interest. I did not immediately assume that the authors have a conflict of interest. Two wholly different things.

It is still suspect in my eyes since there is no disclosure either way. Is it so difficult or costly to include two or three sentences stating any (or absence of) conflict of interests?

 

[The Cadet]

It is still suspect in my eyes since there is no disclosure either way. Is it so difficult or costly to include two or three sentences stating any (or absence of) conflict of interests?

It's pointless and unnecessary, and most paper authors don't bother.

 

[ananda]

It's pointless and unnecessary, and most paper authors don't bother.

Well, those paper authors shouldn't be surprised when they're questioned or under suspicion, then.

 

[The Cadet]

Well, those paper authors shouldn't be surprised when they're questioned or under suspicion, then.

Why? Again, it's convention not to make any such declaration unless it is necessary. If it had been necessary, they would have made such a declaration, or the journal most likely would have rejected it.

 

[ananda]

Why? Again, it's convention not to make any such declaration unless it is necessary. If it had been necessary ....

Who gets to determine if it is "necessary"?