New study brings into question link between a kind of bacteria and environment 4

[zdas04]

A new study by the University of Indiana in collaboration with Cal Tech and Scripts Institute has found that a microscopic creature that was previously thought to exist only in oxygen-rich environments is thriving in an oxygen-deficient/methane-rich environment. This critter is a major factor in the historical atmospheric "record". Makes you wonder how many of the things we "know" about the atmospheric record are 100% the result of faulty correlations.

This is science. The researchers expected an outcome, found a different outcome, adjusted their hypothesis to match observed data, tested the new hypotheses. Really great work.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[zdas04]

I have to admit that I didn't read your whole post, I got tired. I did get down to the "why post it" question. I have to say "why not post it?" I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything. I felt uplifted reading about some folks whose first reaction to unexpected data was to reconsider part of their theory. Just a feel good piece. If they ever get to the point of publishing something with the intention of influencing a field of study, then that work will have to be evaluated on its own merit. You can pick your "feel good" pieces. I'll pick mine.

And please refrain from assigning motives to my actions. You are simply not qualified to read my mind.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[Maui]

Here's the paper that I would select:

https://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/compton.pdf

The author states in the publication itself that his own previous hypothesis regarding the application of classical physics was clearly flawed. The objective analysis that was subsequently performed by this researcher demonstrated a quantum mechanical solution fit the data beautifully, and this work won Arthur Compton the Nobel Prize in physics in 1927. It is one of the best examples I can cite that clearly illustrates the scientific approach zdas mentioned in his opening post.

Maui

 

[rconnor]

Perhaps I misread your intention but I can hardly be faulted for doing so given the content of this thread:
[ul][li]You used a press release about an unpublished paper, which research you've never seen or gone through, as an example of good science. Why would you use a press release as an example of good science? How could you possibly know whether it’s good science when the paper and research has not been released yet?[/li]
[li]Your title suggests the point of the thread is that a "new study brings into question link between a kind of bacteria and environment".[/li]
[li]The dialogue between TheTick and yourself appears to carry a tacit assumption that all research that changes our current understating of climate science is good science (despite the fact no one here has any clue whether this is good science or not) and any research that agrees with the current understanding of climate science is dogma. (by the way, that assumption is dogma)[/li]
[li]The last two sentences in your first paragraph flat out state that you (mistakenly) believe that this research will put into question climate science.[/li][/ul]

To claim that this thread is purely about celebrating an example of good science (when you have no idea whether it is good science or not) and not at all about suggesting that the current understanding of climate science may be weakened by this press release (even though your title and most of your original post is dedicated to stating exactly that) appears a little bizarre, to say the least.

What’s more, a while ago I referred you to a piece of science (that was actually published and publically available) where the researcher’s results were opposite to his original hypothesis. He didn’t sweep the results under the rug but, instead, accepted the results and changed his opinion on the subject. You were not so receptive of that at the time.

That research was the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) data set (and Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average). The researcher was Richard Mueller.

 

[TheTick]

You read to much into this, rconnor. This isn't about whether climate science as a whole is "good science" or "bad science".

My post certainly wasn't a critique of the validity of climate science, but simply a statement that anything that compels us to add to our knowledge is good. Knowledge will stand, regardless of the motivation behind finding that knowledge.

 

[zdas04]

Maui,
Perfect example. Wish you didn't have to go back to 1927 to find it (sorry, I couldn't stop myself), but it is a great example of doing science right.

Rconnor,
Pleas chill. I never said that that story was the only example of people changing their hypothesis to fit the data, I just thought the story was illuminating and uplifting. Sorry it wasn't pal-reviewed in Nature. No, I'm not really sorry. I don't care if they ever publish the paper. I don't care if they backtrack and publish a paper that ignores the critters that thrived in the methane-rich environment.

The human interest story that was published made me feel good about science for a few minutes. Then I read a pal-reviewed "study" with a headline that said that hydraulic fracture stimulation had caused thousands of earthquakes while the actual paper said that we are seeing an increase in seismic events from salt water injection wells and that data from Oklahoma does not support the conclusion that frac'ing has ever caused an earthquake. Then I read another pal-reviewed study that the title claimed that cancer incidence was higher in the vicinity of the Barnett Shale (DFW area) than in a county with a few thousand people, but no shale gas--I opened that one and found that they were comparing total number of cancers in a population of 6.5 million to the total number in a population of under 50,000, not per capita, total. Then I had to ask a group of scientists to remove their acknowledgement of my contribution to a study on methane emissions from pneumatic equipment because they ignored over 70% of their own data to develop a conclusion that fit their agenda. Forgive me for posting a link to STORY ABOUT PEOPLE OF SCIENCE BEHAVING PROPERLY.

I have read quite a bit about BEST, and think that that team is working very hard to eradicate many of the worst sins in the Historical record. They don't claim to be getting rid of all of them, they are quite honest in their claims and I look forward to future temperature records without arbitrary, un-labeled edits.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[btrueblood]

I await rconner's reply, pounding the desk with his shoe and proclaiming unto the masses that we should ignore news releases, since "the science is settled".

 

[cranky108]

That's the thing about science, that theory may never be proven. That theory may only be disproven, or remain in a state of limbo.

Science is never settled. It is just that the theory is in a stable state of limbo.

Anyone who states science is settled, is in essence trying to sell you a bridge in some part of New York.

 

[rconnor]

TheTick, fair enough. I certainly agree with your final sentence.

zdas04, my issue isn’t really that it hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet, my issue is that it hasn’t been zdas04-reviewed yet (which is apparently the true litmus test of scientific accuracy). I cannot understand how someone as skeptical of you could promote a piece of scientific research without seeing (or understanding) the research yourself. Just because they changed their minds does not inherently make it good science. Just because it agrees with or challenges the current understanding of climate science does not inherently make it good science. Good scientific practice makes good science. Since none of us have reviewed the methods, data and results, none of us can tell if its good scientific practice or not.

And I’m glad that you like BEST data. Given how hard this team has been working to “eradicate many of the worst sins in the Historical record”, how much has their data been diverging away from the other sinful data sets and closer towards the truth? What does BEST say about UHI?

btrueblood, what a base-level straw man. I’m quite disappointed as your usually someone who's contributions to the climate science debate I respect. Certainly you understand the difference between saying "the science is settled" and "this press release does very little to undermine the current understanding of climate science".

Furthermore, certainly you understand that there is a difference between “the science will not change at all, ever” and “there is compelling evidence such that a complete overturning of the fundamental concepts is unlikely”. When people say “the science is settled” they don’t mean the former, they mean something much closer to the latter.

 

[zdas04]

I have replaced a decent hypothesis with a worse hypothesis to fit new data on occasion. A few times when this happened I abandoned the avenue of investigation. Other times I found that the old data did not fit the new hypothesis and had to develop a third (or 53rd) explanation that included all the data. My research has been on little stuff (how to make a downhole jet pump immune from cavitation, how do I cost effectively get gas out of a liquid stream, how can I prevent oil loss in an oil flooded screw compressor), but even at my piddly scale I have to start with an understanding of the initial state and describe (usually in a project proposal) how my intervention will get to the (desired) end state. When the data doesn't match the hypothesis then the hypothesis is wrong. The flooded screw example above required 15 cycles through this morass before the hypothesis matched all the data and the predictions matched actual outcomes.

The act of revisiting the theory in light of unexpected data is good science. Whether their process and data acquisition protocols were proper will come out if they ever write a paper on it (which they certainly will in this publish or perish environment). I will wait to see if I believe their conclusions until I see them.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[AZPete]

Maybe the takeaway is that this discussion is proof that science has been to some degree corrupted by dogma/politics, and the apparent sight of someone practicing cool, dispassionate science caused a stir of hopeful excitement.

 

[zdas04]

I can get behind that statement.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

"Maybe the takeaway is that this discussion is proof that science has been to some degree corrupted by dogma/politics"

Sorry, where is the "proof" of that in this discussion?

My issue is that people may be confusing science that disagrees with their dogma/politics with science that is corrupted by dogma/politics. Especially considering the lack of evidence they present to help differentiate between the two.

 

[zdas04]

I posted three examples above. All three crossed my desk the same week. My desk is a pretty small thing. I have no way of knowing how many are out there, but those three were blatant manipulation of data to fit an agenda.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[rconnor]

Oh, you mean those three anecdotes. Remind me again, as you've changed your signature quote, what's the plural of anecdote?

 

[zdas04]

Well it is not data, you got me there. I have not done an objective evaluation of peer reviewed literature. I simply saw a several examples of bad science being published and it caused me dismay. There is nothing to say that the next 3 or 30 or 300 papers would show the same disdain for fact.

My concern is that a peer reviewer would pass on a paper that compares the count of cancers in a population of 50k to a population of 7 million. Had they compared per capita numbers then the counts may have been scalable, totals were not, but it was published.

I'm concerned that a first tier journal would sanction a study that had 70% null values, 10% real data, and 20% verifyably malfunctioning devices and then create an "average exhaust emissions" using a simple average of the non-null values, and then assigning that silly number to the 70% null values before bulking the study up to a national emissions number. This outrageous value has been published several thousand times since the horrible science appeared in the journal.

I had a paper peer reviewed and published in a second tier magazine recently, the peer reviewers mentioned several commas that were misplaced in the reviewer's opinion. There was one figure that looked like it was hand drawn (because it was) that one guy thought looked unprofessional. Two of the references had had their URL garbled in the translation from Word to .PDF. No mention in the peer review of busted references, I don't think the reviewers even opened the links to see if I properly represented the referenced papers. Not sure what a peer review means in that world.

Just anecdotes. No data here.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. ùGalileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[cranky108]

Consitering that most people don't have to have any data to make a decision, and I suspect that number much lower in engineers. It is no doubt silly decisions will be made in society.
Also consitering that no one likes to admit they are wrong, it is no suprise that we travel down strange paths.