I'm not sure of your point, Don?

I brought up Google Scholar and typed in "micro plastic in oceans"

There were 57,300 results in 0.08 sec.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=micro+plastic+in+oceans&btnG=

Then added "micro plastic in oceans ingested by creatures" and came up with about 17,500 results in 0.07 sec.

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=micro+plastic+in+oceans+ingested+by+creatures&btnG=

We know that some plastics break down over time, it becomes very brittle and breaks down into very small particles. There are many biopsies completed on fish and birds showing how the death of those creatures was through the ingestion of plastics.

We have the Royal Commission into Banks at present, do we now conclude that all Bankers are criminal; or, is it a case of a percentage at management levels are corrupt or criminal.

The underlying point your article suggests is that because a couple of researchers were found to have provided corrupt science; therefore, most science is based on false premises or misuse statistics.

Digging a bit deeper:

The National Association of Scholars is a conservative group involved with an interest in education. Being conservative; are they libertarians or some other neoliberal group?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/a-different-kind-of-politics_us_588a0155e4b06558f8e94e81

I notice that the NAS is in denial about climate change.
They support Scott Pruitt in de-regulation of the EPA.
They support Trump.

A comment that jumped out from NAS reference provided by Don ... "A growing number of scientists now reject the idea of statistical significance altogether."
So is heresay a better standard to use, or maybe "gut feeling", than using statistical significance.

The very foundation stone of good science is test results that can be endlessly replicated and the inherent integrity of researchers to do honest replicable research. And a huge responsibility that may well have lives and person fortunes hanging in the balance. And where this isn't so, fraud or quackery that has to be called for what it is by those for whom their personal integrity/ self-respect, counts for more than mere money! this fraud self-evident all over the alleged scientific community? Wih more than a few able to ignore evidence-based research for patent personal mercenary reasons? Thus we have climate change denialists claiming current warming is just normal and cyclical? Even though irrefutable historical evidence tells us that a sun in a waning phase (ours) may well produce a new ice age or cooling period but never ever a warming tend replete with exponentially expanding polar and glacial ice melts! When good historical evidence tells us the very opposite ought to be happening! It seems almost every scientist or alleged researcher has his/her price, thus we had those employed by big tobacco, the asbestos industry and now the fossil fuel industry telling two completely counter prevailing stories? One for the mugs out there in mugsville and another to their employer/paymaster! Nothing wrong with good science, just the honesty and inherent integrity of a few claiming fellowships? No names, no pack drill. Apologies for the lack of paragraphs. Alan B.

I can’t speak for medical discoveries but certainly the Social Sciences are producing extremely misleading studies, especially around sexual orientation and children issues.
The internet is full of studies claiming children do as well, if not better with same sex couples, yet an in depth look at those studies reveals exactly how non scientific they are.
The vast majority of those studies are small, not random selected participants, no control group and depending on answers given by parents.
So, major decisions are being made based on studies that are nothing more than volunteer parents filling in forms relating to their perception of how their children are faring in the various areas of life.
The two large studies that actually used scientifically based methodology with data taken from government departments were attacked so viciously no one can use their results without being shredded personally. Those two large studies are also difficult to find via Google.
To me this just shows so called researchers are merely producing papers that confirm beliefs held by noisy activists, and none stand up to even small scrutiny.

Least of all, the often spurious claims of big Nana, who as a scientist practising scientific rigour, cherry picks those so-called scientific articles/papers, that fail peer review, but not the wishes of the also-ran, homophobic community. As a midwife makes an excellent all knowing suppository of all medical wisdom. And knows in her own hand that one can pick and chose their genes as easily as others would change their attire. Today,e.g., I'm black but don't care much for that skin colour. So tomorrow I'm going to ask Big Nana, who knows, how one changes the genetic circumstances of birth, (her published claim just days ago) so I can be just another white fella. When one replies to a suggestion to google Alan Sanders, highly credentialled geneticist for scientific proof that homosexuality in all its forms and guises is fixed in your chromosomes before birth. What will I find? Those that reject evidence-based research simply refuse to look! The way most of the wider medical community did when two Noble Prize-winning, West Australian researchers proved that bacteria rather than stomach acid caused ulcers. Scientific research is best done by those seeking the truth rather than those with an inflexible predisposition and own their own facts as demonstrated by, I will not see, Big Nana, who could be a bloke using a female pen name? Alan B.

"There are many biopsies completed on fish and birds showing how the death of those creatures was through the ingestion of plastics." says ant, but fails to give any proof.

You will have to get these biopsies published on U tube in video form if you really expect people to believe them. Most of us trust a used car salesman more than an academic today. Their word is useless without public evidence.

There is far too much of this secret science, that "everyone knows about" but has never produced any evidence to support the so called findings.

The climate science scam has opened too many eyes for academia to be able to continue wasting bucket loads of public funds on their rubbish.

It is very brave of Don to tell so much of the growing rot in academia. It must be costing him some friends. We thank you Don for lifting the lid of the cesspool that we are paying for.

One issue I've heard on the issue of responsible science is to know where the money comes from. If it's university studies what is supporting the grant money? As far as I'm aware there isn't that much money deticated to replicate other studies. (Unless those studies have a spotlight in them or potential for more funds in them). So how do we expect the studies to be replicated?

The other angle is regarding privite industry studies. These studies might be more reliable on the reasoning that they want a product that works, and therefore will sell once it's on the market, but their studies are more privite to protect patents and inovenation. The money put into these have to be regulatedly forced to be shown or they will be kept secret for a new computer patent or a new drug patent. As well as to keep the industries honest and not sell something that is't what they claim it is.

Either way it's worth mentioning the angle of money. Expecially for who would pay for studies to be retested to confirm the results.

Maybe some research is in order, into the new Japanese restaurant, “The Edible Brother”, in Tokyo. It's attraction is the sale of human meat featuring on its menus.

We all know of course, the Chinese have captured this market through a chain of restaurants, where the only admission from them is the occasional use of cats.

Very underhanded. Research please.

Hasbeen ... you say "... but fails to give any proof."

I provided google scholar references, you clearly did not bother to check.

Who do you trust LNP politicians or Ernst & Young:

https://www.aemc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-04/EY’s%20Final%20Report.pdf?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Worm-FreeTrial-010518

Allan B , had I realised you were so deficient in a sense of the ridiculous, I would have ended my comment the other day about changing gender, with a sarc tag.

BTW Alan, I looked up you revered geneticist and discovered that he at least does not claim what you say he has. His research findings is full of words like, possible,
likely, perhaps etc. Nothing actually proven. And his words confirm this, as in this extract from a science review below which states his claims show a “weak”connection with genetics. Even he admits environment plays a part in orientation choice. And he is not a geneticist, he is a psychiatrist, big difference.

“A new study in a major journal has found a weak association between several genes and sexual orientation. However, that doesn’t mean that science has identified a “gay gene” or anything like it—and some scientists have cautioned against overinterpreting the findings.

Regions on two chromosomes seemed to differ the most between people who identified as gay and those who identified as straight, according to a study published in Scientific Reports on Thursday. This is the first time an analysis, known as a genome-wide association study, on this topic has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, on the whole, the genomes of gay and straight men were not significantly different.

“We know that sexual orientation has some hereditary or genetic contributions,” Dr. Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist at NorthShore University HealthSystem Research Institute and an author of the paper, told Newsweek. “A common scenario in this kind of research is that you’ll hear people use a sort of shorthand like ‘the gay gene,’ which is not really accurate at all."

Sexual orientation may spring only in part from a person's genes. Sanders estimated that contribution might be about 30 percent; other factors in society and the environment likely also play a large role in shaping a person’s sexual identity.

Peer-reviewed, Alan Sanders and TEAM! Have with proper scientific rigour, identified two genes that are exclusive to homosexual genders and as reported for all to see have nominated a further three probables. As for a sense of the ridiculous! that's just not your homophobic, blocked ears and blindfolded history, Big Nana. Oh, suppository of all known genetic discoveries and validation! You'll have a nice day now y'hear. Alan B.

Ant
you should have looked at the list of references you cited. In fact I doubt that any of them actually support the work of the two scientists Aitken is talking about. They are more or less researching around the point.. how micro-organisms can ingest plastic and so on - not that the organisms are harmed but how they might be harmed. What you've pointed to there is an illustration of just how scientists can jump on a populist bandwagon at a moment's notice. There is no doubt now that the research subject of the original complaint, was never performed

ant,
I'd regard E&Y as almost as untrustworthy as LNP politicians!

Plastics do indeed break down into very small particles. And there are many fish and birds dying due to ingestion of plastics. But those are the result of relatively big pieces of plastic clogging their digestive tracts. Do you have any evidence of creatures dying as a result of micro plastic ingestion?

Ho hum, If Don writes an article about science you can pretty sure it's about climate science. He may include 'supporting evidence' (mostly irrelevant anomalies) from other fields, but the conclusion is always, always about climate science.

What about this one Don?
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/23/flawed-climate-science-paper-exposed-potential-weaknesses-in-peer-review-process/#more-64459

Theres a lot more examples coming from the anti-climate science brigade, yet not one in your article.

I wonder why?

PELL Off Topic: Now decided today Cardi PELL today "committed to stand trial on historic sex offence charges"

see http://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/05/01/10/22/george-pell-going-to-trial-on-historic-sex-offence-charges

curmudgeonathome

My main point was in relation to using google scholar was to show how much research has gone into the study of plastics; I did acknowledge that the research Don referred to might have been corrupt. Having looked further into NAS I believe "might" was the appropriate word on the basis of the reference source. To make disparaging comments about science shows no acknowledgement of just how much research has been completed, my google scholar examples shows just a small fraction.

The NAS makes bold claims with little evidence.
I read an article about Trump from a NAS source, where the introductory comments were about being non-partisan, the article itself was extremely partisan towards Trump.

Do a little research and it soon becomes clear that it is political ideology that drives NAS.

Ant if ever you did any serious research you could not possibly be a believer in the global warming scam.

Hasbeen, you wrote " Ant if ever you did any serious research you could not possibly be a believer in the global warming scam."

Quote:

"A thorough review of climate science literature, including acknowledgement of fossil fuels’ dominant role in driving greenhouse gas emissions. More importantly, ... contribution to global CO2 emissions.
A detailed analysis of potential climate impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and human migration.
A discussion of the potential impacts to the fossil fuel sector itself, including legislation, changing public sentiment, and infrastructure vulnerabilities. ... concludes that active engagement from the energy sector is desirable.
A cautious response to uncertainty in scientific models, pressing for sincere consideration of solutions even in the face of existing debates.
A warning to take policy action early, even before major changes are observed to the climate."

Do you agree, or otherwise with the quote, Hasbeen?

I'll provide references once you have commented.

An analogy from Real Climate:

" Imagine there has been a forest fire. The police have extensive evidence that it was arson. They know the place where the fire began. They found traces of fire accelerants. Witnesses observed a man whose car was parked nearby. In his trunk the police finds bottles with fire accelerants, and in his house they find even more of it. He has been convicted for arson several times before. Plus some further evidence. In court, he defends himself: forest fires have always occurred lit by lightning, even before there was any man on Earth. Therefore he must be innocent. Does the argument convince you?"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/07/the-climate-has-always-changed-what-do-you-conclude/

A number of science disciplines support climate science, which equals consilience.

"Do you agree, or otherwise with the quote, Hasbeen?"

Careful Hasbeen, he's playing the old shell game with you. ;)

_____________________________________________________________________

The major problem with science these days is that its became a career rather than a calling. And that game is played by getting published.

Researchers are pushed to find results and especially surprising, news worthy or lucrative results. So the temptation to play fast and loose with the data is enormous.

Whatismore, these days the results are often arrived at first and the data second. So again the search to find the appropriate data to fulfil the desired results is stark. Its why so much of what is 'found' in social science and especially psychology is not reproducible.

Additionally, the level of innumeracy in the community and even among scientists means that statistics are often used to generate publishable results. The Chocolate Diet hoax was essentially a manipulation of statistics to achieve publicity.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-chocolate-diet-hoax-fooled-millions/

Finally, much of science is now political either through ideology or through the need to chase and satisfy the government dollar. Since the science is seeking to remake the world (be it on climate or social issues like same-sex child raising) the data is often forced to support the politically correct answer.

Bad behaviour is only fixed if there are consequences for it. IF a scientist sees colleagues playing with the ethics and succeeding, the temptation to follow suit is enormous.

I dream of a system where scientists are not only evaluated on the number of their publications but also on whether their results are reproduced and whether their data is found to be suspect.

I can't believe I'm saying it, but that probably means government oversight. A government body that is tasked with trying to reproduce results and verify data. Paid for out of the current science budget.

_______________________________________________________________

BTW the shell game is a game of fraud.

In response to your comment about your comment about serious research, Hasbeen.

Shell put out a Report on climate change in relation to fossil fuels in 1988.

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

A number of quotes from Shell 1988 Report:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2018/04/04/here-what-shellknew-about-climate-change-way-back-1980s?utm_source=dsb%20newsletter

In 1968, the American Petroleum Institute was warned about about the impact of fossil fuels on climate:

http://theconversation.com/us-firms-knew-about-global-warming-in-1968-what-about-australia-57878

http://www.ciel.org/news/smoke-and-fumes/

Series of slides, including quotes from 1968 Report:

http://congreso.medicos.cr/documentos/CambioClimatico/M/climatechangeawarenessdenialandprogress.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oil-cover-up-climate_us_570e98bbe4b0ffa5937df6ce

Series of documents displaying that fossil fuel companies knew about the issues surrounding their products:

http://www.sheredling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/SMC-Endorsed7_2017-07-17-SMCO-Complaint-5bFINAL-ENDORSED5d.pdf

The foundation of science is that it has to be reproducible. By formulating a testable hypothesis we create an experiment that should be reproducible by nature. If not, the conclusions drawn from the experiment may not be credible.
You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

You never learn, do you ant?

Over two years ago you were touting the ExxonKnew rubbish as a game changer while at the same time hilariously refusing to read the actual source documents. It took a while (due to the vagaries of the US court system) for my prediction that the whole case against Exxon would collapse to be proven correct, but collapse it has.

But despite what should have been a salutatory lesson, you plunge in again. Read the Shell documents. They aren't saying they know what will happen. They are canvassing the various options, showing caution where it needs to be shown and suggesting responses if things go the way the some of the alarmists asserted.

But they aren't saying they know that climate change is real or really bad. They are keeping their management appraised of current thinking.

It should be noted that Shell more than any other oil company tried to buy off the greens by going forcefully into so-called clean energy and making all the sort of noises the greens demand to hear from those they target. This episode shows how futile that strategy is/was.

Not too much new from Don Aitkin here. Cherry-picking examples of research failures so he can maintain his preferred view of climate change.

I did enjoy Don Aitkin suggesting the National Association of Scholars shares his intellectual values. The NAS is in favour of racism, sexism and homophobia in education and wants to get rid of those pesky liberals at Universities so that its own version of conservative values and American history can be taught. Of course they are climate change deniers. Who could have guessed.

This particular article mixes up a host of issues in an attempt to paint academia as a basket case. Some people will love it no doubt, but it is beholden on me to point out that Don Aitkin has either not read or not understood Ioannidis seminal paper.

mhaze ... I referenced a number of sources that showed how fossil fuel companies were made aware of the damage fossil fuel emissions on the atmosphere decades ago.

Did you not read the Shell Report summary presented by:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html#document/p4/a415539

We have reached the minimum increase in global temperature of 1.3C predicted by the Shell's own Report.

Another reference provided states:

"Shell lists a number of areas that could be specifically affected by climate change, including":

sea level rise, rise in sea temperature,acidification of sea water, agriculture, area of forest, changing air temperature and water supply.*

* My abréviation.

Currently, Trump government is being taken to Court through pushing for stopping emission reductions in new vehicles from being introduced:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/01/california-17-other-states-sue-trump-administration-to-defend-obama-era-vehicle-efficiency-rules/?utm_term=.0fce29ac2ba2&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

A further reference:

http://www.sustainablesanantonio.com/companies-knew-about-the-link-between-fossil-fuel-and-global-warming-as-far-back-as-the-1980s/

"One confidential 1988 report from Shell was titled “The Greenhouse Effect.” It read, “Although CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere through several natural processes … the main cause of increasing CO2 concentrations is considered to be fossil fuel burning.”

You made lots of comments about the inaccuracy of science in your last post, though provided no evidence. Where are your references?

Ant go back to school, & get enough math so you can follow the scientific arguments.

Then for a starter, try to follow the math trail in simple places like notrickszon.com or Tallbloke's Talkshop. Even What's Up With That has articles that could gently lead you to using your grey matter for a change.

When you can do that you will be ready to go further.

Just squirting garbage links to the scam artists does not represent any sort of scientific argument. If they don't give their reasoning or the math, it is simply garbage

It probably doesn't matter much. With the reduction in sunspots the grand heater in the sky is about to take a hand by the looks of things. It is going to get cold, how cold we don't yet know, but cold enough to stuff up the elites, & their use of useful idiots like you to take our current standard of living off us, & return us to our place.

So much of the old money has backed this scam to put the peasantry back in its place, they will fight tooth & nail to finish the job, but I think Sol is going to beat them. Unfortunately for them, they started to believe their own propaganda, & did not go fast enough to achieve their objective, before mature started to take a hand. Now it's all too late, they & dills who believe are bound to fail.

Lots of soap will ultimately get the egg off your face, but not out of your mind.

Hasbeen ... I was wondering about what denier blogs you have visited, I have visited one you mentioned in the past a number of times. I'll visit the other you mentioned.

Later:

More cherry picking and information shown to be wrong a long time ago.

In response to an article from one of your references.

Geothermal activity found under Thwaites Plateau , does not explain other areas of Antarctica, or all of melt from Thwaites Glacier. Examples being, other Pine Island glaciers, the break down of Larsen A, B, and C ice shelves; or Totten glacier of Eastern Antarctica. Nor does it explain the breakdown of the cryosphere at other parts of the globe.
The author of your denier blog was jumping to conclusions.

Antarctica, excluding ice shelves, is a much bigger continent than Australia, it being roughly a third bigger.

Hasbeen ..in addition.

Thwaites glacier is 113,000 square miles in area, in comparison to Victoria which is 97,749 square miles in area, while New Zealand is 103,483 square miles in area Geothermal activity does not explain all of the melting in other words. The article from your reference does not take into account the cryosphere of the globe generally.

In relation to a tanker that sailed the Arctic in winter 2018 which I wrote about on Onlineopinion; it was described as the first ever winter passage by a tanker. A correspondent stated that the tanker was built as an ice breaker which could travel through sea ice. Later, I found that the maximum thickness of sea ice the ship could travel through was 2.1 metres thick. It was silly really for me to have accepted the critical comments from the correspondent, as in the past Arctic sea ice was much thicker than the 2.1 metres thick that the tanker could travel through.

The message: check from prime sources where possible.

This article is an insult the the millions of scientists around the world that have committed their entire lives to push the boundaries of human knowledge and solve the issues we face around us. Making presumptions over things you do not have a full understanding of and producing this naive article is the complete opposite of what a proper scientist would do. You mentioned statistics in your article, but it appears you do not have proper understanding of its use. You should read up on it/take an online course such as these:
https://www.studypug.com/statistics/data-interpretation/bivariate-scatter-plots-and-correlation
https://www.coursera.org/learn/intro-chemistry/lecture/XY8v2/scientific-method

before writing future articles on science.