I wonder if any of these were about “Global Warming”?

<<<their rapid increase is a sign of a winner-take-all culture in which getting a paper published in a major journal can be the difference between heading a lab and facing unemployment. “Some fraction of people are starting to cheat,” he said. >>

I think it can’t be argued that some of this is prevalent in climate science as well though I don’t know if there are a significant number of papers retracted for fraud. If Mann cherry picked non -hockey stick proxies, we would have never heard of him. They didn’t retract Mann’s paper for fraud but he did have to redo it a couple times (even after it was peer reviewed and approved) and it is still garbage as far as I am concerned.

Looks like the sock puppet idiot is back.
– Chosen by Asker

“”2,047 retracted papers in the biomedical and life sciences.””

Err, probably not. Nice try though, alarmist. Next time read your link first.

EDIT – I do look forwards to this question acting as a launching pad for delusion. Key Maxxbrush quotes in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6….

If you read the article you would see it was a majority in the HEALTH sector, meaning some claim of some herb or essence of “weed” were claimed to have some effect.
I like how they word it “Misconduct”
When in fact it is falsified/ a blatant lie/ by non scientists in order to make quick cash.

Especially with “AIDS” front and center with “CANCER”.
I just listen to the claims that are for my benefit such as coffee is OK to drink, also some alcohol is good for the bloodstream…and education is hard on the mind.
I heard that red wine and Hops are good for you.
Like, where is my Beer already? No wine right now thank you.

If I am hammered, I don’t care bout no cancer, ya know?

Source(s):
as I read it

No. The retracted papers were from biomedical and life sciences. Although if a paper related to global warming were withdrawn, there is no reason not to believe that it wouldn’t be a skeptic paper. Don’t hold you breath waiting for the “Hockey Stick” to be withdrawn.

David B

I don’t know about Maxx, but Ottawa Maxx has made an appearance. OK! Ottawa Maxx! What do the emails say about

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas? http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissio…
2. The laws of thermodynamics? http://physics.about.com/od/thermodynami…
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing? http://co2now.org/
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/uniontr…
4. This CO2 is due to the combustion of fossil fuels? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2…
5. The Earth’s temperature is increasing? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs…
6. Natural factors which influence climate would be cooling the Earth if not for anthropogenic CO2? http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w…

Probably denialist tracts

No climate science has a better grip on who the editors and reviewers are for papers. It is to be expected there would be less retractions. As a matter of fact, the only retractions I can recall are when so-called amateur skeptics who do this sort of thing in their spare time point out errors. That right there should tell you about the climate science peer review process.

Let’s go back to the Climategate emails video replay for a refresher:

“Kevin (Trenberth) and I (Phil Jones) will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !”

” If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted.”

“Ensure that such misleading papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing. “

“Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading authors.”

“Offending editors could be labelled as “rogue editors”, in line with current international practice? Or is that defamatory?”

“I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” “”It’s one thing to lose Climate Research. We can’t afford to lose GRL.”

“All of them know the sorts of things to say…without any prompting.”

Yes, in the day time at least. Because the skies were almost entirely free of contrails more energy from the sun was able to reach the earth’s surface, rather than being reflected back towards space by the contrails. This was used by some to argue that air travel actually helped to cool the planet through the reflection of sunlight by contrails. However, this overlooks what happened at night. With no contrails the infrared (heat) energy emitted from the earth’s surface is able to escape much more easily and so the surface is able to cool to a much greater degree. When there are contrails these act like strips of blanket – trapping the radiated heat and keeping the surface temperatures higher. So, when both day and night time temperatures are considered, contrails have a net warming effect on our planet, even before we consider the greenhouse gas emissions that they represent. An interesting recommendation made recently was to restrict night time air travel, and so confine the formation of contrails to the day time – where they have less of a positive climate-forcing effect.

Well there’s no real need to retract AGW papers since their function is the promotion of Socialism rather than Science.

Scientific Errors are irrelevant to Warmonism.

Get a grip, you too Quill

Climate science is a hot topic and threatens the fossil fuel industry, as such they have a financial incentive to check every paper in order to find fault with the science. For example direct subsidies of fossil fuels in 2010 alone came to $557 billion.

PS You might be interested in this talk by Ben Goldacre about publication bias; http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_wh…

Source(s):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29…

LOL I love it when these denialists don’t read their own source in their haste to post an “AHA!!!” question and just look like complete idiots.

OM’s statement about the denialists finding flaws in climate science is the same flawed nonsense he posts all the time. This time it is called observation selection bias. Mike is aware of denialists occasionally finding a fault in a published or soon to be published study, and assumes this is the only time mistakes are spotted. He has NO information on how many studies are rejected and subsequently rewritten to amend errors, or on how many are rejected and never published, or on what proportion of submitted papers are published, or on what proportion of published papers a later found to contain errors which should have been picked up during the review process.

Without all this extra data, one CANNOT make any objective judgement about “the climate science peer review process”. Some sceptic!!!

No. Greenies never admit they are wrong. No matter what. If you agenda is green your paper will be accepted no matter how foolish. If it is not then not crossing the ‘T’ will get it retracted.